American Consulate Attack in Libya

[Martina]

This from an article in the Times today:

“An attack on the holy prophet is an attack on the core belief of 1.5 billion Muslims. Therefore, this is something that is unacceptable,” said Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf in an address to a religious conference Friday morning in Islamabad.

Mr. Ashraf called on the United Nations and international community to formulate a law outlawing hate speech across the world. “Blasphemy of the kind witnessed in this case is nothing short of hate speech, equal to the worst kind of anti-Semitism or other kind of bigotry,” he said.

Surely he knows better.

Hate speech is defined in terms of inciting violence AGAINST the party being maligned. The people causing violence in this case are the folks who are the targets of the offensive speech.

Speaking as a high school teacher, there is an element of immaturity to this that boggles my mind. Someone hurt me deeply, so I beat them up. Please put them in jail, not me. What someone said made me feel a really strong feeling. A REALLY strong one. My behavior after that is no longer my responsibility, but theirs.

A young (tres hip) Muslim man was on NPR yesterday talking about how he couldn't believe people were taking the bait. He understood the video as bait. And he was upset at the naivete of folks who just grabbed it.

Bait or not. Intended to offend not. It did not incite violence AGAINST Muslims.

GOD, this makes me grateful for the Constitution.

HEAR me, Ciaran and others whose comments make ME feel labeled as a jingoistic American. I am so god damned proud of my Constitution. SO GRATEFUL for the U.S. Constitution.

Understand that?

Edited to add: I know that a lot of the anger with the U.S. and other western countries stems from the historical relationships we have imposed on the region -- as subaltern states. They have not had the power to affect us, and our decisions have had ruinous effects on some of the nations there -- for generations.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

This from an article in the Times today:
Surely he knows better.

Hate speech is defined in terms of inciting violence AGAINST the party being maligned. The people causing violence in this case are the folks who are the targets of the offensive speech.

I was thinking about this walking the dog this morning. Imagine, if you will, if black people in America had spent *just* the years between 1900 and 1990 going on a rampage and breaking things every time something offensive was said to us or about us. Just in the last 90 years and *just* in the USA. Can you imagine? Black people have had to develop a pretty hard outer shell because I am here to tell you that the first *half* of my life incredibly racist things were just part of everyday American discourse. From the restaurant chain Sambo to the the rantings of Rush Limbaugh, hardly a day would go by when I wouldn't hear something or see some imagine denigrating of blacks.

By my mid-twenties, I had learned two things: 1) I can't make people not look down upon me because of the color of my skin and 2) I can't stop people who hold racist sentiments from speaking their mind.

From there, I recognized that to save my sanity and to give my son a fighting chance to save his sanity, I had to learn to hold my head up high and not give racists the satisfaction of responding how they expect me to respond. The expected response from me, as a black woman, is to freak out, start moving my head back and forth, yelling and carrying on. That way the racist can look at me and say "see, this is how 'they' always act. No self-control." I confound them because I don't lose my temper and I outsmart them and nothing--no thing--makes a racist squirm more than to be bested by someone who he or she thinks they are superior to. Perhaps I shouldn't enjoy their discomfort as much as I do but I do and so be it.

Speaking as a high school teacher, there is an element of immaturity to this that boggles my mind. Someone hurt me deeply, so I beat them up. Please put them in jail, not me. What someone said made me feel a really strong feeling. A REALLY strong one. My behavior after that is no longer my responsibility, but theirs.

This is why I have taken the stand I have about this issue. First, we say "well, you know what, we'll do that. You can't say anything against the Prophet or portray him in any manner that would not be acceptable to the *most* restrictive Islamic sects". The next day the demand will be that you can't show any art, play any music or publish any book that might give offense to this or that sectarian group. So suddenly, at the behest of this or that religious group that nude sculptures or women in diaphanous gowns be covered up in the name of modesty. The day after that, it will be that you can't speak out against religiously inspired bigotry be that against racial, ethnic, religious or sexual minorities.

Once you start to give in on this matter, you tend to have to continue to give in on it. How could you not? If I can't say X because it might offend the sectarians of this or that religion, then by what justification can I say Y because it might *also* give offense? I can't see how. "Well, in the case of X you are saying something offensive to a religious group that was born of out disdain for this group but in the case of Y you are defending an oppressed group against bigotry" seems a fairly weak place upon which to stand. If I've learned nothing else about bigotry (not just racism but bigotry) is that the vast majority of bigots likely do not see themselves as bigots.

If I had a dollar for each time I've heard some variant of "I'm not racist but..." or "I'm not sexist but..." or "I'm not anti-gay but..." I'd have enough money that I would only have to pay in taxes what Mittens has to pay. The people who are posting pictures of the White House lawn covered in watermelons, or Obama's face on the body of a chimp, or now hanging chairs in effigy don't think they are racists. Todd Akin doesn't think his 'legitimate rape' comments are sexist. Fred Phelps doesn't think he's a bigot for being anti-gay. Terry Jones doesn't think he's being a bigot in his rabid anti-Muslim tirades. Rush Limbaugh doesn't think he was being sexist calling Sandra Fluke a slut.

So when we stand up and speak out against Akin, or Phelps or Jones or Limbaugh or any one else who is advocating bigotry, we are unlikely to hear them say "oh well, that's different". Instead, they will argue that we are on the wrong side of the issue from God, or they will argue that we are being anti-American, or anti-Christian, or anti-straight but they will *not* agree that they are in the wrong. So if we decide that a mob in Pakistan should dictate what is acceptable and unacceptable public utterance is in London or San Francisco or anywhere else, what do we say when the *next* thing some other mob, perhaps closer to home, demands that no longer should it be spoken that being against gay rights is bigotry? That we will heed the words of an angry crowd on the other side of the globe but ignore the words of those closer to home even though, truth be told, the positions of the crowd outside the embassy in Islamabad and that of customers outside of Chik-fil-a are pretty close at least as far as it concerns homosexuals.



Cheers
Aj