Editorial: Makers of Islam film trailer deserve some blame for violence
April Hudson
News Editor
Sep 19, 2012
Three minutes into a film trailer that recently sparked a rash of violence and outrage across the Middle East, it becomes apparent as to why such a reaction has manifested. Since the bombing of the US Embassy in Libya, it has been all too easy to take shots at what the heart of this issue might be. It’s the fault of Islamic radicals. It’s religion, or lack of religion. It’s because of cultural divides or cultural oppression. Or maybe it’s the degrading racism that has always inherently followed Islamic-Western relations — on both sides.
It’s a mixture of all of the above — a pseudo-North American radicalism that has developed as an answer to the notion of radical Islam that has pervaded deep into the collective consciousness. But of course, the most important part of that Western radicalism is freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech has become the rebuttal for many attacks for or against an ideal. One thing that tends to be overlooked is hate speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that all Western democracies share. And while certain countries like Canada have restrictions on hate speech, It’s important to note that America does not. While this video does not explicitly tout Muslims as being less than human, the implication is there — they are stupid; they are barbarian. We can laugh at them and degrade them and it’s all fun and games until someone gets killed.
Despite the outrageous prejudice of such attitudes, some might argue this kind of flippant bias has been given credence by past events. Violence has been inherent in the Middle East for a long time now and knowing this, the line needs to be drawn before it gets to that extreme. These petty “he did it, she did it” disputes must end. Speech incites actions, and while the creators of the film did not individually elicit the violence that followed, they were vital in bringing it about. They cannot wash their hands of the affair and take no responsibility, because ignorance is no longer an excuse.
Western countries have largely cast off the public sacredness of religion and the role that it plays in society — opting for a secular approach. The mantra that nothing is sacred has become the only truly sacred thing for many people. Islamic violence has become a running joke in some Western households, as has the Islamic prophet Mohammed. But the development of a film specifically designed to target and humiliate an entire group of people has no right to exist and has no merits on which to be defended.
The film itself is corny and extremely low-budget. Poor acting and casting team up with a poor script and props to create a wholly forgettable experience. What it lacks in cinematic merit it makes up for in utterly crass and unnecessary goading. The purpose is clearly to make the history and faith of Islamic peoples look foolish. By extension, the people themselves are the target; it is humiliating and infuriating.
Although there is absolutely no justification for extremist violence, it’s ridiculous to be surprised at the violent retaliation of hard core Islamic cells. People have long been aware of the existence of these groups — and it’s common knowledge that the United States is not their favourite country. Creating a video like this is akin to poking a sleeping bear, except the bear has been awake and growling for quite some time.Islam gets a bad reputation because of events from recent years. Whether or not that reputation is wholly deserved, it is important to realize that cultural differences have created a gap that is nearly impossible to bridge. In Western culture, nothing is sacred. Making fun of Mohammed is much less taboo than other jokes that deal with sensitive subject matter. And in many circles, these jokes are encouraged. However, through the eyes of a nation that still has a unifying religion, treading on this dangerous ground is nothing short of blasphemous.
The makers of this video should not only be ashamed of themselves, but they should feel guilty for the turmoil and destruction they’ve created. Men and women unrelated to the video have lost their lives over what should have been nothing more than a tasteless joke. But luckily for the creators, they live in a nation where they never have to feel the full effects of their actions and thus never have to truly face the consequences — while other people have already paid a more costly price.
Comments
Board of Governors — May 10, 2013
05/13/2013
Chivalry Should Die
05/02/2013
The remnants of chivalry still linger today, especially in the dating world.
The Best of Gateway Multimedia 2012-13
Varsity Sports Awards [Gallery]
While it is true that they deserve their share of the blame, it seems rather unfair to stack it all on them. What should have merely been a peaceful protest turned into a mob, with no better reason than “he started it”. There is no excuse for this amount of violence.
Posted by Anon on Sep 19, 2012
“They made fun of Richard Dawkins!? LETS BURN SHIT DOWN AND KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE!!” said no atheist ever.
Posted by atheos on Sep 19, 2012
April, I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying, but I think you forget something crucial: no idea should be exempt from criticism. None. No prophet, no politician, no messiah, no saviour no nothing should be free from insult. I should be able to say “fuck Jesus, fuck Ganesha, fuck Richard Dawkins, fuck the Pope, fuck Jack Layton, fuck Peter Lougheed, and fuck Mohammed too” without fear of violence or death. Ideas do not deserve rights: people do. Certainly no one should face violence or death for freely expressing themselves, no matter how offensive that expression might be.
Yes, the makers of the video should accept some responsibility. But the violent mobs are far more guilty. If you aggravate someone and they murder you, you are not guilty of murder. No one forced those mobs to kill people or engage in acts of violence. They did that of their own volition.
No one is obliged to accept the sacredness of any religious belief. Freedom of [removed]which includes freedom to criticise and insult) is a fundamental element of any healthy democracy. Once certain things fall behind the veil of “not to be criticised”, you can use those “sacred” things to stifle debate which inevitably harms democracy.
All that said, fuck the assholes who made that video. Just because they have the RIGHT to be offensive assholes, does not mean they are exempt from the RESPONSIBILITY of not being assholes. We also need to live in a global society where people aren’t constantly assholes to each other. So, they should feel at least somewhat responsible. And, they should be criticized for their ignorant, islamophobic, and offensive actions. But, they certainly shouldn’t be fear violence or death.
In conclusion: fuck the assholes who made that offensive video. They should be criticised, and should feel at least somewhat responsible. But fuck the violent mobs who can’t handle their precious imaginary deity being criticised, too.
Posted by Radical Rationalist on Sep 19, 2012
This article is a joke, right? If not, why not apply it to other situations? Let’s logically conclude that one should partially blame doctors performing abortions in the US for inciting abortion clinic bombings.
One cannot assign any blame to the film-makers for the aftermath; they had absolutely nothing to do with the actions and motivations of extremist Muslim groups. No matter how much one disagrees with an idea, violence is always an inappropriate response: perhaps a counter-film should have been produced mocking America, or just a simple, reasoned response explaining why the film is incorrect, or simply laughing off its low budget and inaccuracy. One can find images of people in the Middle East apologizing for the actions of these thugs and fanatics. It seems even the majority of Muslims, who are the butt of this poorly-constructed joke, agree with this sentiment.
The only valid criticism one can assign to them is for portraying Islam incorrectly. The film-makers can be argued to be assholes or morons, and those are probably both true, but that doesn’t mean they should be stripped of their right to express their opinions, no matter how factually incorrect they are. Otherwise, we should start censoring creationists too.
Simply put: place the blame completely on the violent splinter group that actually committed the crime, and stay away from the film-makers. Otherwise, this is akin to shifting some blame/responsibility to women for getting raped. Just because their violent reactions are the norm in the Middle East and we know that these events happen, doesn’t mean people need to stop exercising their rights.
Posted by A Voice of Reason on Sep 20, 2012
The fact that any criticism of Islam results in the severe violence in the middle east, making such a video may be considered unwise, ignorant, or malicious. That being said, having viewed the “Innocence of Muslims” it is far from anything that should be taken seriously. The film is terrible, and aside from bringing myself up to speed about what all the controversy was about, a complete waste of time.
The fact that radical Islamic leaders spread false rumours about the film in an attempt to raise dissenting sentiments towards America and members of the Jewish community are much bigger issues. The fact that people who have not even seen the movie are so easily brought to arms is a problem that cannot be placed on the film makers. The film is of particularly poor taste, but has resulted in similar reactions as critical and tasteful analysis of Islamic culture.
Riots, violence, and fatwas have been placed for all levels of criticism of Islam, so at what point do we claim a person he no longer responsible for the actions of others do to an expression of opinion or act of poor taste?
Posted by Not Guilty on Sep 20, 2012
Shame on you Ms. Hudson.
I don’t normally respond to campus newspaper editorials, but in this case I am going to make an exception. Hudson manages to pay lip service to freedom of speech while claiming that the filmmakers responsible for the Innocence of Muslims were vital in causing the deaths of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Hudson describes a “pseudo-North American radicalism that has developed as an answer to the notion of radical Islam,” a feature of which is freedom of speech. What does she mean by her use of pseudo? A false North America or a false species of radicalism? Later, she refers to Western radicalism, “Western” being one of the most contested terms–geographically and culturally–in the social sciences. No matter. It is clear that she uses the term pejoratively, contrasting Canada’s restrictions on hate speech with our apparently racist neighbor to the south.
“Speech incites actions,” writes Hudson, and though there is no “justification for extremist violence,” we should behave appropriately to avoid poking the sleeping bear. If speech does incite actions, I am far more concerned about this particular editor’s speech than anything in an anti-Islam video. Hudson dismisses freedom of speech early on in her plea for cultural sensitivity. How tedious it must be to constantly be faced with such a radical ideal, when there are so many other exciting ideals to strive for, like blasphemy.
I have no sympathy for thugs, regardless of their motivations and I won’t be cowed by those who want me to live by their particular brand of theocratic Islāmic fundamentalist totalitarianism. It’s intellectually lazy and morally irresponsible to suggest that the Innocence of Muslims has “no right to exist” or that its filmmakers must take some of the blame for murder, which by all accounts appears to have been pre-planned and executed in response to the death of Abu Yaya al-Libi.
In the unlikely event that the Benghazi attack turns out to have been motivated by the film, my response will remain the same. The cultural sensitivity advocated by the author is nothing more than a transparent attack on freedom of expression. This sort of cultural suicide is genuine Islamophobia wrapped in the soothing baby-talk of appeasement. Freedom of expression is a fragile right, and it must be constantly defended, regardless of how boring it must seem to those of us who forget the lessons of history. We need more blasphemy, not less.
Posted by Jonathan Simmons on Sep 24, 2012
The film may be in poor taste but it is one person who has made a personal opinion about what they believe they are seeing with in the Muslim faith and how it is being portrayed by the Muslim Extremists. Who would rather use violence, hate, acts of murder towards others than their own reasoned thoughts and say “No sir that film of yours is not an accurate portrayal of the Muslims and the Muslim faith. But to say that the film maker is responsible and should feel guilty for the violent actions of those who do not want their faith commented on criticized or even made fun of. Well perhaps they should watch Monty Pythons Life of Brian. where the film make fun of many various aspects of Christianity. But I have to ask why are not questions like the following not being asked? such as “what are Muslim people doing to promote the positive aspects of their faith and religion?” “What are they doing to say or show people that they do not support the acts of violence or the extremists views that have been promoted as the “True Muslim Faith” extreme views that I would say have been promoted with large amount of success and has met very little challenge or resistance by those of the Muslim faith who do not agree. And why is violence being the first reaction?
Posted by baffled on Sep 26, 2012
Submit a comment
All comments must be approved by a moderator before they will be visible, and may take up to 48 hours to appear. Comments may be no longer than 5000 characters.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.