The anti-Western riots in the Muslim Land inspired by (presumably insulting) depictions of Prophet Mohammad in amateur movie and professional satirical cartoons brought issue of freedom of expression, blasphemy, and hate speech to the front lines of international (and, for many countries, domestic) politics.
I don't see a need for myself to defend so fundamental right as freedom of expression - the first cornerstone of democracy itself. It's done by others over the course of centuries and even millenniums, before even Plato had to defend himself in Athenian court (and I won't do it better then Plato).
But the current events brought up other issue that isn't so systematically addressed and, in many cases, is fails under subjective and conflicting interpretations: when a free speech become a hate speech and if a hate speech should be protected by principal of the free speech.
Any professional soldier knows that to kill another human is a very difficult moral proposition (not talking about psycho killers who can be found in any walks of life). The primary method to easy this task is to show that enemy is not a human - he's just un-animate subject of actions. It can be easier done for combat pilots, UAV operators, gunners who don't see their targets' faces. It's harder for the front-line troops who do see them.
The hate speech is different from any other forms of expression in its incitement of violence on solicitation for murder. It's achieved by de-humanisation of its hatred targets, by striping them from attributes of humanity and making them just un-animated subjects of actions.
Therefor, de-humanisation is a key attribute of the hate speech and its first and only identifiable marker. Any speech must be qualified as a hate speech just and only if it's de-humanising its targets. Insult, mockery, blasphemy, and subversion do not qualify!
Hate speech is not a rare occasion in our history. Hate speech is what makes war and murder possible. From extermination of Native Americans "savages" by European settlers to slaughter of first European settlers by their Native American neighbors (across both Americas). From old-time Jewish pogroms to Holocaust of Nazi's "final solution". From genocide of Hereros and Namaqua in Namibia of 1904 to Armenian genocide of 1914 to Rwandan genocide of 1994. From slaughter of "bourgeoisie social enemies" by Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russian Civil War to slaughter of Israeli POW by Syrian captors. From slaughter of "foreigners" in Chinese Boxer Rebellion to slaughter of Chinese civilians by Japanese Imperial Army in "Rape of Nanking".
Among fundamental human rights only right to life is supersede the free speech. Hate speech is undermining the right to life and, therefor, is not protected by free speech.
But are "Innocents of Muslim" and Mohammad cartoons hate speech or just reckless exercise of the free speech?
Based on the publicly available fragments neither one of them match criteria of de-humanisation. Quite an opposite - Mohammad (and his followers) in all cases shown as a very human (it's probably just add to the perceived "insult" and condemned as blasphemy).
The bigger question is if the modern mainstream Muslim society can demonstrate maturity and understanding of the democracy? Apparently it's not (except for rare and, unfortunately, marginalised voices like of Ad Husain, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and some other).
Modern Muslim society sees nothing wrong with accepting "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (which meets all the definition of the hate speech) under the banner of the free speech and became hysteric on little mockery of its own believes.
Production of "Innocents of Muslim" by itself has absolutely no artistic value and would be ignored by any mature culture.
And as Mr. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula initially claimed to be Israeli Jew by name Sam Bacile, this opens completely different subject of centuries old "tradition" of making Jews scapegoats by neighboring population and for his (Mr. Nakoula) intellectual deficiency (especially his claim of exactly "100 Jewish" donors which shows hallmark of traditional blood label accusations), even I can understand his desire to deflect backfire retaliation from his own Egyptian Coptic community.
No comments:
Post a Comment