I keep seeing and hearing all these references to some anti-Islam YouTube video that is sparkling a lot of controversy but I can’t find said video anywhere or figure out what it is like. Does anybody know? Do you have any opinions on the controversy? Maybe a link to the video?
I’ve been away and then very busy so now I feel left out of the global news stream. These days, you snooze for two minutes and then you can’t catch up in a week.
Just read a post discussing it, and can’t help seeing something in his words:
Власти Франции временно закрывают свои посольства и школы в 20 странах.
Париж пошел на такие меры, опасаясь акций протеста и нападений после публикации во французском журнале Шарли Эбдо карикатур на пророка Мухаммеда.
Премьер-министр Франции Жан-Марк Эро не видит ничего страшного в публикации. Он советует недовольным обращаться в суд.
“Мы живем в стране, где защищается право на выражение собственного мнения. У нас, в частности, гарантируется свобода публикации карикатур. Я хочу также напомнить, что мы живем в светском, правовом государстве. Таким образом, как мы можем хоть что-то с этим сделать? Если люди действительно чувствуют себя оскорблёнными и уверены, что закон был нарушен, то они могут попросту обратиться в суд”.
Но он лукавит.
1. Во Франции, с 17-го сентября, запрещены исламские акции протеста.
Куда подевалось право на “выражение собственного мнения”, г-н Эро?!
2. Фотографии полуобнажённой супруги британского принца Уильяма Кейт Миддлтон отныне запрещено публиковать во Франции.
Помните, что сказал премьер-министр? Он сказал:
“Таким образом, как мы можем хоть что-то с этим сделать?”
Как видно, очень даже можно сделать. Причем, молниеносно.
Теперь, я хочу задать вопрос:
– Значит, запрет на показ грудей Кейт Мидлтон, для Франции более приоритетен, нежели пиар акция некоего журнальчика, который, своей публикацией, вполне может привести к ВЗРЫВУ (на фоне последних событий)?
Не верю.
http://vlad-lavrov.livejournal.com/81643.html
LikeLike
For not Russian speaking readers – the quoted Russian blogger wonders how come topless Kate Middleton photos are banned in France, and AT THE SAME TIME French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault
said on Wednesday anyone offended by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo could take the matter to the courts.
But he emphasised France’s tradition of free speech. “We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature,” he said on RTL radio.
The blogger wonders why France cares more about naked Middleton than about having problems after anti-Islam publications. Problems like this:
“France to close embassies in 20 countries…”
Since he is a pro-Putin Russian, he has a theory of France agreeing to draw Muslim world’s attention from US to herself, which sounds strange to me.
LikeLike
I can’t link to it now but it’s called the innocence of Muslims. It’s a silly, vile, video but a lot of people who consider themselves liberal have condemned the makers of the video because of people killed in riots it supposedly caused. I take deep issue with this, and it shocks me that anyone would think that a filmmaker could be somehow responsible for a murder that was committed by a separate completely independent, free individual. And many have indeed been hinting that the filmmakers are partly culpable for the murders. It’s interesting to me because these are often times the same people who argue that a woman who is raped should not be shamed for what she was wearing or where she was because the blame falls solely on the attacker – non violent circumstances are irrelevant in respect to culpability. It may indeed be true that had a rape victim been dressed more modestly she wouldn’t have been raped but this is irrelevant to who is at fault for the rape. Obviously it is possible that had the video not been made, the murdered people would still be alive but this does not mean the filmmakers are morally responsible for their deaths in anyway. Kind of an interesting comparison.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen the video yet but I agree completely that the idea that anybody can be “provoked” to kill (or rape, or assault, etc.) with a movie, a book, a poem or anything else is preposterous.
LikeLike
What he did was to film a movie in order to incite violence. That’s the ONLY thing this movie could do. How is it a morally good decision?
You gave woman rape example, so I’ll give another example:
Your neighborhood has a recently released pedofile. It’s 100% his responsibility not to attack kids, as we all agree. You decide you want some family to get hurt for your own purposes, and start sending him attractive photos of the family’s child. Photo after photo, till the criminal’s restraint gives way and … Sure, he is 100% guilty, but does it mean you’re 100% not guilty? I don’t logically see how the second follows from the first.
LikeLike
“What he did was to film a movie in order to incite violence.”
– You can’t incite anything if people choose not to get incited.
“That’s the ONLY thing this movie could do.”
– That is not true. It made me feel bored and sleepy. So that’s another reaction it could and did provoke. We cannot expect everybody to predict what their every utterance will “incite” in other people. Are you sure you never said or did anything that made other people angry?
” Photo after photo, till the criminal’s restraint gives way and … Sure, he is 100% guilty, but does it mean you’re 100% not guilty?”
– Absolutely, it does. And I don’t think any court in the world would assign guilt to the photo-sender. We have free will.
LikeLike
You know why I personally wished for this Coptic Christian on probation to be arrested? Supposedly, he has full rights to film this thing (but not to shout “Fire” in a cinema OR publish Kate’s nude photos, yes?). And he has a right to hide, while other people suffer because of his decision. (I know and agree that the killing Muslims are responsible, but the film could be done only with this purpose, to incite violence, which is actually against the US law, as I heard).
But must this piece of s*** also say that he was an Israeli Jew and that the film was paid for by 100 Jews?! (Read this in Israeli paper). Don’t we, Israeli Jews, have enough problems without this? So, not only he incites violence and hides, but also tries to push the results on Israel. Yes, we live in an insane world, but that’s the only world we have and in it saying such can hurt my country. So, all of this is legal, but Kate’s pics aren’t? It’s insane.
Reminded me of good old history of blood libels against Jews, which are as legal as ever. Unlike Kate’s breasts, which is the truly important issue.
LikeLike
“(I know and agree that the killing Muslims are responsible, but the film could be done only with this purpose, to incite violence, which is actually against the US law, as I heard”
– Did it incite any violence from you? I’m watching it right now and no violence is incited from me. What is against the law here is to say, “Go and kill group X!” Everything else is covered by the freedom of speech.
“So, all of this is legal, but Kate’s pics aren’t”
– She did not consent to be filmed while these actors supposedly were. There is a big difference here.
LikeLike
Of course, we all understand from whom he wanted to get violence. Not from me or you.
LikeLike
I’m not a mind-reader, so I wouldn’t be guessing what anybody wanted.
Besides, no artist – even the most amazing one – can predict what anybody’s reaction to the work of art will be. That’s just not possible.
I believe in the freedom of speech, all speech, any speech, for absolutely everybody. These are my values, I practice them peacefully, and I will not give up on them because of how somebody somewhere might react. Killers will find a pretext to kill no matter what you do. Because that’s who they are.
LikeLike
I’m convinced that the murders would have happened even if this video never existed. The video is just an excuse. If it weren’t there, there would have been another excuse. Killers want to kill and they do that completely irrespective of what other people do. I understand the desire to believe that something could be done to avoid the killings, that there is a measure of control that the victims have. They don’t however. The killers kill first and invent excuses later.
LikeLike
It is not fair to assume a spoof on Islam is meant to incite violence. There are much more brutal attacks on Christianity and their creators are not assumed to be for the purpose of causing violence.
More importantly, it isn’t relevant if a video is intended to incite violence or not. The violent are morally responsible for the violence. Period. I can shout at you and call you dirty names and do everything I can, and as long as I do not physically threaten you, any violence you do to me makes you morally culpable for that violence. The notion of provocation implies that the provoked lose control of their free will – which they do not.
Even further, I agree that killers would kill regardless of ‘provocation’ but even this point is irrelevant when assigning blame. Even if, the murderers would not have committed murder, had the video not been created, the blame still falls on the killers. In this sense, interestingly, it is possible to say that the video ’caused’ the violence. But the filmmakers are still not to blame, because the murderers made the CHOICE to kill. Even supposing that this choice was made directly and wholly in response to a film (obviously it wasn’t)- it was still a free choice.
LikeLike
“It is not fair to assume a spoof on Islam is meant to incite violence. There are much more brutal attacks on Christianity and their creators are not assumed to be for the purpose of causing violence.
More importantly, it isn’t relevant if a video is intended to incite violence or not. The violent are morally responsible for the violence. Period. I can shout at you and call you dirty names and do everything I can, and as long as I do not physically threaten you, any violence you do to me makes you morally culpable for that violence. The notion of provocation implies that the provoked lose control of their free will – which they do not.
Even further, I agree that killers would kill regardless of ‘provocation’ but even this point is irrelevant when assigning blame. Even if, the murderers would not have committed murder, had the video not been created, the blame still falls on the killers. In this sense, interestingly, it is possible to say that the video ’caused’ the violence. But the filmmakers are still not to blame, because the murderers made the CHOICE to kill. Even supposing that this choice was made directly and wholly in response to a film (obviously it wasn’t)- it was still a free choice.”
– I agree with all of this completely. It’s good to see something so well articulated. Thank you, Liz!
LikeLike
Although I could be wrong about this, I think the only place people have actually been killed was in Libya. And with these deaths, the evidence points to an pre-planned attack that took advantage of the film protests, rather than an attack planned in response to the film.
LikeLike
“And with these deaths, the evidence points to an pre-planned attack that took advantage of the film protests, rather than an attack planned in response to the film.”
– That’s exactly what I think, too.
LikeLike
Have you seen the new conservative attack ad trying to connect Obama with the Muslim brotherhood?
It’s from a right wing super pack group that calls itself, l”et freedom ring out“.
LikeLike
The Republicans must be getting really desperate to concoct such a stupid attack.
LikeLike
Here is a good article on the topic, which basically makes your point that the video itself was just a tool in the hands of various people who wanted to incite violence. http://world.time.com/2012/09/13/the-agents-of-outrage/
I’m actually doing a culture portfolio assignment on the reporting of the violence in the American media based off the Newsweek “Muslim Rage” debacle article. Should be interesting!
LikeLike
I agree that we must protect free speech and I think it is very bad that the Obama administration “asked” Google to reconsider it’s policy for allowing the video to stay up (when the United States government, who has the power of the Justice Department, the IRS, the SEC, etc…”asks” a company to do something, there can be an implied threat behind the veil if the company doesn’t comply). Google said that the video will remain up as it doesn’t violate their rules. But the U.S. government should NOT be trying to pressure a company to hamper free speech.
I also think it is bad how HIllary Clinton sympathized with the rioters in condemning the video. I wish the administration had stood up for our right of freedom of speech. Some people I have seen flub the concept of freedom of speech by saying that “respect for different religions” is a cornerstone of American democracy (this was in response to Mitt Romney’s criticism of Obama). Now regardless of what thinks of Romney’s criticism, the idea that respect for religions is a cornerstone of America I think is a crock. TOLERANCE for different religions is a cornerstone, but if you want to say to someone that you think their religion is the stupidest bunch of crap you’ve ever heard and that they have to have been hit in the head with an anvil to even believe such drivel, you are free to say that.
Accusing the video makers of seeking to incite violence I agree is irrelevant. These extremist Muslims (not saying all Muslims are like this, I just mean the ones who are extremists) will riot over any criticism of their religion. You would have to ban outright any and all criticism period of Islam with regards to speech that supposedly causes them to riot. Look at how that guy who made the video critical of Islam was beheaded, or the guy who made the cartoon making fun of Islam was killed.
This video is not the equivalance of shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. If you shout about a fire, people’s behavior is not determined by their free will and response to an opinion, but by their response to a perceived danger. Insulting a religion on the other hand, if people respond with violence to that, that is on their own free will and thus is on them.
Regarding Kate Middleton, France has a much stricter right to privacy then we have here in the United States, and violating that right to privacy can lead to some more serious punishment. The magazine that published the photos I believe violated the law in this sense. Criticism and/or mockery of religion however is not the same thing as violating a person’s privacy rights.
LikeLike
“Insulting a religion on the other hand, if people respond with violence to that, that is on their own free will and thus is on them.”
– As a religious person, I agree with you completely.
LikeLike
My thoughts on this topic:
The video is poorly made. It is boring, and slightly humourous. It is full of errors both in its quotes of the Quran and the Bible. There is very definitely dubbing over the original soundtrack, and not by the same actors (many who have claimed to not have known what was really being filmed). I can not guess what the person or persons who made this intended to happen by filming this garbage, but it definitely wasn’t to educate people. Perhaps they intended to incite violence by “Muslims”, I do not know. Perhaps they meant it only for their group of small minded individuals. That they were looking for some kind of reaction, though, is evident to me.
Regarding the violence by so called “Muslims”. True Muslims would not hold an entire country liable for the actions of a small group of stupid people. They would not hold protests outside embassies. They would not attack people just because they are the same nationality of someone who has wronged them. True Muslims would point out the errors in the film, and try to educate others. They would condemn the people responsible (and I don’t mean hunt them down and kill them), not the entire country.
On another note – saying that because of the actions of a group of people claiming to be Muslim that all Muslims are violent and evil is wrong. It would be like saying that all Roman Catholics are evil and hate Jews because of Hitler.
LikeLike
// dubbing over the original soundtrack, and not by the same actors (many who have claimed to not have known what was really being filmed).
OMG. When the film maker was led to be questioned by police (officially for something else, not the movie), he completely hid his face by a white scarf, saying he is afraid for his life and his relatives’ (who live in a Muslim country) lives.
However, he didn’t give this choice to actors, whose faces are bare and who endangered themselves without knowing it. Without agreeing to this.
If somebody did such to me, I would’ve sued him.
LikeLike
But perhaps the dubbing was done FOR the actors’ safety. They can now claim that they had no idea what the video was about and perhaps avoid spurn or violence.
I also think it is not exactly right to say the film maker “endangered” the actors. Did he dangle them off of a cliff? No. The only ones endangering anyone are people who are acting violently.
LikeLike
It surely seems that some of the people who claim to be Muslim need to leave the 7th century. 😦
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment