American Consulate Attack in Libya

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Actually, in my opinion, this touches on why there's an antagonism towards the USA across many parts of the world. It's incredibly arrogant for the USA to view itself as the world's policeman (or policewoman for that matter). No nation or collection of nations should think that they have the carte blanche right to interfere in the internal affairs of other parts of the world. Values are not absolute.

I'm not sure that last bit is true. Is there a single sane person on this planet that would argue that it is entirely acceptable if some nation should decide that they will round up some group X within their midst and put them all to death in a systemized, callous and utterly barbaric fashion? I would argue that there *are* absolute values. There may not be a whole lot of them but there are a few. I would say that no people, no matter how powerful, have leave to enslave another person. If it is not forbidden, even if that is simply in the sense that it's just one of those things you don't do , then it is permitted. We should be extraordinarily cautious around the idea that there are no absolute values.

Before I ask you some questions to show the point I'm making, please understand that I am assuming that every single person reading these words is entirely opposed to racism, violence, slavery, sexism, bigotry of all kinds, oppression of all sorts. In fact, I'm counting on everyone reading this being a humane and compassionate person who is operating out of goodwill. The throat clearing is simply so there can be no possibility of misunderstanding here.

Now, is there anyone who would argue that if a people decided to practice slavery that it would be acceptable? Is there anyone who would argue that it is okay for a society to have laws that take whole populations and put them outside normal legal protections? Is there anyone here who would argue that if a society says that the word of a woman in a rape case is worthless unless multiple men also back up her story that that is simply their choice? Anyone want to argue *in favor* of laws making homosexuality punishable by death?

These are not matters of simple prejudice. Would anyone argue that Jim Crow in the United States was simply a matter of preference in Dixie and we cannot say whether it was a bad thing? An unjust thing? Again, not simply matters of national, cultural or personal preference. If there are no absolute values, no places where either people or cultures should not go then we have no basis upon which to judge whether or not society today is better than society, say, 100 years ago. Anyone think that society was better off when women couldn't vote?

I'm sorry but enslaving other people is wrong. It wasn't evil because it happened in my nation, to my people. It was evil because it happened and had it been people from Africa who had sailed up north, grabbed a bunch of people from Scotland and taken them to North America where they sold them to the Native Americans, it would *still* be evil. It was evil because people were treated as mere property, tools, means to an end and not ends into themselves. Any culture that thinks it is acceptable to enslave people--*enslave them*--is doing something wrong. I emphasize slavery because I'm not talking about things that get called slavery. I'm talking about actual taken by force, held by force, transferrable to another person as property, right to slay you on the spot because the sky is blue, can take your children and sell them off, slavery. I'm not talking about horrible working conditions. Slavery.

I would say that what happened in Russia under Stalin when millions died in purges and gulags, that Russia was doing something wrong. It is wrong to kill people because of political disagreements. It doesn't matter if in so doing you are going to bring about a proletarian utopia, you can't slaughter your fellow citizens because they disagree with you politically. I don't think the state has the right to do so on behalf of the citizenry and I don't think the citizenry has a *normal* right to do this. If the citizenry is being slaughtered by their government, they have the right to defend itself. If a *legitimate* state (consent of the governed, minority rights, rule of law) is threatened it may use what measures are necessary to put down those who would overthrow it. States, like people, should be able to defend themselves. But the state doesn't have the right to arbitrarily take measures against its citizenry. For that matter, I would argue that majorities should not have the right to vote on the rights of minorities.

To say that slavery, bigotry, legal exclusion of minority, genocide are simply matters of cultural taste is to give up the ability to speak intelligibly about why we should prefer our own societies to be as they are now over as they were 400 years ago. Anyone want to go back to a time when witch burnings were a commonplace?

I'm sorry but I would say that any society that does not *allow* or *encourage* the burnings of witches is to be preferred over any society that does. A society that allows witch trials and witch burnings is likely to have a whole lot of cultural habits that will make life *very* unpleasant. Witch trials only work if there are no rules of evidence and if the accused must prove their innocence against accusers who need prove nothing but speak their testimony. They only work if torture is considered morally acceptable. Anyone want to argue that if a society chooses to torture that is acceptable? If you're willing to argue that, then what's the problem with the United States torturing?

A world without any kind of absolute values--and you did say categorically that values are not absolute--is a nihilistic world. In such a world, we cannot speak of justice or injustice for there is no measurement to give which any other person or people, who wish to get on with oppressing others, are bound to respect. This means there is precious little upon which to build a consensus to act upon.

I'm not defending either American or British imperialism. Rather, I'm arguing against a certain kind of nihilism.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

I will be back tomorrow........

interesting dialogue could happen

[Ciaran]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I'm not sure that last bit is true. Is there a single sane person on this planet that would argue that it is entirely acceptable if some nation should decide that they will round up some group X within their midst and put them all to death in a systemized, callous and utterly barbaric fashion? I would argue that there *are* absolute values. There may not be a whole lot of them but there are a few. I would say that no people, no matter how powerful, have leave to enslave another person. If it is not forbidden, even if that is simply in the sense that it's just one of those things you don't do , then it is permitted. We should be extraordinarily cautious around the idea that there are no absolute values.

Before I ask you some questions to show the point I'm making, please understand that I am assuming that every single person reading these words is entirely opposed to racism, violence, slavery, sexism, bigotry of all kinds, oppression of all sorts. In fact, I'm counting on everyone reading this being a humane and compassionate person who is operating out of goodwill. The throat clearing is simply so there can be no possibility of misunderstanding here.

Now, is there anyone who would argue that if a people decided to practice slavery that it would be acceptable? Is there anyone who would argue that it is okay for a society to have laws that take whole populations and put them outside normal legal protections? Is there anyone here who would argue that if a society says that the word of a woman in a rape case is worthless unless multiple men also back up her story that that is simply their choice? Anyone want to argue *in favor* of laws making homosexuality punishable by death?

These are not matters of simple prejudice. Would anyone argue that Jim Crow in the United States was simply a matter of preference in Dixie and we cannot say whether it was a bad thing? An unjust thing? Again, not simply matters of national, cultural or personal preference. If there are no absolute values, no places where either people or cultures should not go then we have no basis upon which to judge whether or not society today is better than society, say, 100 years ago. Anyone think that society was better off when women couldn't vote?

I'm sorry but enslaving other people is wrong. It wasn't evil because it happened in my nation, to my people. It was evil because it happened and had it been people from Africa who had sailed up north, grabbed a bunch of people from Scotland and taken them to North America where they sold them to the Native Americans, it would *still* be evil. It was evil because people were treated as mere property, tools, means to an end and not ends into themselves. Any culture that thinks it is acceptable to enslave people--*enslave them*--is doing something wrong. I emphasize slavery because I'm not talking about things that get called slavery. I'm talking about actual taken by force, held by force, transferrable to another person as property, right to slay you on the spot because the sky is blue, can take your children and sell them off, slavery. I'm not talking about horrible working conditions. Slavery.

I would say that what happened in Russia under Stalin when millions died in purges and gulags, that Russia was doing something wrong. It is wrong to kill people because of political disagreements. It doesn't matter if in so doing you are going to bring about a proletarian utopia, you can't slaughter your fellow citizens because they disagree with you politically. I don't think the state has the right to do so on behalf of the citizenry and I don't think the citizenry has a *normal* right to do this. If the citizenry is being slaughtered by their government, they have the right to defend itself. If a *legitimate* state (consent of the governed, minority rights, rule of law) is threatened it may use what measures are necessary to put down those who would overthrow it. States, like people, should be able to defend themselves. But the state doesn't have the right to arbitrarily take measures against its citizenry. For that matter, I would argue that majorities should not have the right to vote on the rights of minorities.

To say that slavery, bigotry, legal exclusion of minority, genocide are simply matters of cultural taste is to give up the ability to speak intelligibly about why we should prefer our own societies to be as they are now over as they were 400 years ago. Anyone want to go back to a time when witch burnings were a commonplace?

I'm sorry but I would say that any society that does not *allow* or *encourage* the burnings of witches is to be preferred over any society that does. A society that allows witch trials and witch burnings is likely to have a whole lot of cultural habits that will make life *very* unpleasant. Witch trials only work if there are no rules of evidence and if the accused must prove their innocence against accusers who need prove nothing but speak their testimony. They only work if torture is considered morally acceptable. Anyone want to argue that if a society chooses to torture that is acceptable? If you're willing to argue that, then what's the problem with the United States torturing?

A world without any kind of absolute values--and you did say categorically that values are not absolute--is a nihilistic world. In such a world, we cannot speak of justice or injustice for there is no measurement to give which any other person or people, who wish to get on with oppressing others, are bound to respect. This means there is precious little upon which to build a consensus to act upon.

I'm not defending either American or British imperialism. Rather, I'm arguing against a certain kind of nihilism.

Cheers
Aj

You have done a great job at taking a sentence and twisting it for your own ends in your rather long reply.

Values are not absolute. That does not, by definition, make society nihilistic. Rather, it means that values, and what's commonly accepted as right and wrong, changes over time. For example, what's most commonly referenced as an intrinsic value is the right to life. However, scratch under the surface and you'll find that sort of value means very different things to different people and, in fact, for some, their right to life means a right to end the lives of others i.e. death penalty states for prevention / punishment of serious crimes.

Much of what is accepted as "good" today will, no doubt, be viewed very differently by subsequent generations. Values are partly cultural - hence, your example to slavery. Most of us (not all of us) may be sickened by the idea of slavery today but, centuries ago, some of our forefathers and foremothers clearly thought otherwise.

Similarly, your reference to torture. You may believe that torture is wrong but clearly not everyone does - include many in senior positions in US society. As for racism? It's actually enshrined in law in some way or another in most countries that I've been to.

I have my values - they are strongly held and I am, in the original meaning of the word, a bigot. However, my value system is complex and, no doubt, impacted by many aspects. They are not absolute and we know that peoples' values systems change when their circumstances do (hence the rise of Nazism in post WWI Europe).

Values not being absolute doesn't equal a nihilistic world. Rather, it equals the world we live in for all the good and bad that it is.

[Martina]

From Juan Cole's blog:

Top Ten Likely Consequences of Muslim anti-US Embassy Riots

Posted on 09/15/2012 by Juan

1. Tourism in Egypt and Tunisia, the economies of which heavily depend on it, is likely to take a nosedive this fall. It is a shame, because Tunisia had been hoping for a near return to 2010 levels of 7 million visitors this year. And Egypt’s tourism was up 16% over the previous year, though still down by 300,000 visitors a month from summer of 2010.

2. Likewise, foreign investment will be discouraged. Ironically, the embassy riots broke out while a delegation of 100 US business executives was in Cairo looking for investment opportunities. Some of those planning to stay beyond Tuesday are said to have abruptly left the country and canny observers spoke of the good will generated during the visit being squandered.

3. Decline of tourism and of foreign investment implies even higher unemployment in countries already plagued by lack of jobs.

4. In Egypt and Tunisia, the Muslim fundamentalist-dominated governments may well get blamed for failing to maintain public order. In opinion polling, security and fear of crime are major concerns on the part of ordinary Egyptians.

5. Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the al-Nahdah in Tunisia, fundamentalist parties that did well in the first post-revolution elections, face new parliamentary elections in the near future. If they are in bad odor with the public for failure to provide public order, and for implicitly helping the Salafi rioters, and for failure to improve the economy, they could be punished at the polls. It would be ironic if the impassioned reaction of fundamentalists to a phantom Islamophobic film so turned off the public as to lead to the Muslim religious parties being turned out of office in the next elections.

6. As a result of these considerations, the fundamentalists will blame outside agents provocateurs for the violence, and Israel for provoking it, trying to convince the public that Muslim fundamentalists had nothing to do with the issue.

7. The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi and the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others almost certainly spells an end to any American interest in intervening in Syria. The longevity of Bashar al-Assad’s secular Baathist regime, now attempting to crush rebels that include a small number of radical Muslim vigilantes, may have just been lengthened. Meanwhile, the Muslim world will be unembarrassed that they got so upset about a Youtube trailer but didn’t seem to care if hundreds of Syrians were killed, arrested and/or tortured every day.

8. The attack on the embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, by some 4,000 angry protesters, will likely draw the US even more into internal Yemeni disputes, since Washington will want to try to destroy the fundamentalist movements there. US drone strikes on radical Muslim movements of an al-Qaeda sort have become commonplace in Yemen. However, no one in the United States will know that Yemen ever existed or that the embassy was attacked, or that the US is pursuing a policy of drone strikes in that country.

9. Assuming there aren’t any diplomats taken hostage, President Barack Obama will look presidential in dealing with these deaths in Benghazi and his electoral chances may improve.

10. Mitt Romney will go on switching back and forth among his various opinions of the Islamophobic film and of President Obama’s reaction to the Libyan consulate attack.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

You have done a great job at taking a sentence and twisting it for your own ends in your rather long reply.

I didn't twist anything you said. In fact, I took the most limited reading possible and assume that the statement 'values are not absolute' means just that. Values are not absolute. That means that there is no way to argue that we should prefer, if given a choice, value set A over value set B.

Values are not absolute. That does not, by definition, make society nihilistic. Rather, it means that values, and what's commonly accepted as right and wrong, changes over time. For example, what's most commonly referenced as an intrinsic value is the right to life. However, scratch under the surface and you'll find that sort of value means very different things to different people and, in fact, for some, their right to life means a right to end the lives of others i.e. death penalty states for prevention / punishment of serious crimes.

That would be a nonsensical reading of a right to life. It's one of the reasons why many on the American Left (such as it is) rightly object to the characterization of anti-choice partisans as being 'pro-life' because they are not 'pro-life'. What they are is anti-abortion. A consistent pro-life stance can't square itself with support of the death penalty.

Much of what is accepted as "good" today will, no doubt, be viewed very differently by subsequent generations. Values are partly cultural - hence, your example to slavery. Most of us (not all of us) may be sickened by the idea of slavery today but, centuries ago, some of our forefathers and foremothers clearly thought otherwise.

Yes, and they were wrong. Not just expressing a different but equally valid set of values. Their values were wrong. In the mid 1930s one of my mother's brothers was lynched. The people who did so *genuinely* believed that my uncle, his father and mother, all his siblings, all his nieces and nephews who had not yet been born, and every single member of his line stretching up and down through the eons, was not *actually* human. Because they were not fully human, their lives were not particularly valuable. Because their lives were not valuable, it was no crime to take his life because a white woman accused him of attacking her because he bumped into her. That wasn't just a cultural peccadillo but a sign of a culture with a bad set of values. Not different bad. Jim Crow was an evil system. Not a regrettable one, not one that I should be glad mostly had only secondary effects on me but an actually evil one. What we have now, imperfect equality as it is, is far and away better than the one my parents were living in from the 1920s until pretty much the time of my birth in the mid-1960s.

Similarly, your reference to torture. You may believe that torture is wrong but clearly not everyone does - include many in senior positions in US society. As for racism? It's actually enshrined in law in some way or another in most countries that I've been to.

Torture *is* wrong. It is wrong on moral grounds, it is wrong on utilitarian grounds and it is wrong on ethical grounds. I'm not opposed to torture because it was my government doing the torturing. I'm not opposed to torture because it was poor and middle-class whites torturing poor non-whites. I'm opposed to torture because it is morally indefensible.

You appear to be conflating the violation of intrinsic values with their not being intrinsic. Are you prepared to argue that because racism is enshrined in the laws of many nations that racism isn't wrong? If you aren't, and it is vanishingly improbable that you are prepared to do so, then by what do you justify preferring to live in a society that is not explicitly racist than one is? By what argument are you prepared to state that American society circa 2012 is a better society than America circa 1942. I *am* prepared to make that argument because there are things that are intrinsically wrong and to violate them means that your society is behaving wrongly. Just because societies break the rules and take some action that is intrinsically wrong doesn't mean that it isn't wrong.

Just because someone breaks into a house to steal the stuff inside and, discovering that the owners are home, kills them, doesn't mean that neither murder nor theft are wrong. In the same way just because Germany slaughtered millions of innocents in adherence to a racially eliminationist philosophy doesn't mean that genocide isn't wrong. What the German people allowed themselves to become was evil. What the German people did during the period of 1932 to 1945 was evil. It wasn't just a cultural practice that we cannot and should not try to judge because trying not to say that the Germans shouldn't have done what they did puts us in very ugly and vile moral territory.

If there are not intrinsic rights and wrongs, things that under almost no (if not absolutely no) circumstances a people should not be allowed to get away with, how do you argue that Britain is a better nation without the Empire or that America is better without Jim Crow? Personal preference? It's better today because now we recognize it is better but it was better then because they thought it was better back then? I knew a whole generation, all deceased now, that would argue strenuously that the America their grandchildren or great-grandchildren live in now is far and away a better one than the one they were born to, all self-interest put aside.

Cheers
Aj

[Kätzchen]

Item no. 8 in the article Martina submitted above is covered in this recent press release of former President Jimmy Carter's speech, as delivered, at Drake University.


http://qctimes.com/news/state-and-re...a4bcf887a.html


Carter: U.S. drone attacks violate human rights

Former President delivers speech at Drake University


September 14, 2012 10:38 am • Rod Boshart


DES MOINES – Former President Jimmy Carter said Thursday that America is engaging in — and its citizens are accepting — human rights violations that “would never have been dreamed of” before the terrorist attacks that occurred in this country 11 years ago.

The nation’s 39th president said the U.S. government under both Republican and Democratic administrations has violated 10 of 30 provisions set out in a universal declaration of human rights that was forged after World War II, including perpetually detaining people in prison without informing them of any charges, providing them access to legal counsel or bringing them to trial and, more recently, by killing people via the use of unmanned drones.

“We have now decided as a nation that it’s OK to kill people without a trial with our drones, and this includes former American citizens who are looked upon as dangerous to us,” Carter told a group of Drake University students involved in a social-justice learning program.

“Not just terrorists, but innocent participants in weddings and so forth that happen to be there. I think this is acting in a way that turns people against us unnecessarily because there is a great deal of animosity about the United States that is unnecessary, in my opinion, because our drones are performing these things” in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and even in the Philippines, he said.

“These are the kinds of actions that would never have been dreamed of before 9/11,” Carter noted, referencing the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I think we need to go back to the purity of the guarantees of basic human rights,” he added. “Most Americans either don’t know about it or accept it. I’m not criticizing one leader compared to another because both Democratic and Republican leaders are participating in these violations. We should all look upon human rights as something that is precious to us because we need to get back and be the champion of human rights and I believe the champion of peace as well.”

Carter, a Georgia Democrat who served as U.S. president from 1977-81, and his wife, Rosalynn – founders of The Carter Center – delivered the 29th Martin Bucksbaum Distinguished Lecture on Thursday evening at Drake’s Knapp Center. Before that event, the former president and 2002 Nobel Peace Prize recipient and his wife heard students discuss a wide range of social justice they are involved in, descriptions that the Carters found emotionally moving.

During a question-and-answer session, the former president addressed a number of international topics.

Carter disagreed with delegates to his Democratic Party’s national convention who restored a platform position that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, saying the same thing happened when he was running for president in the 1970s and he made a public announcement in opposition to it. He said the best hope for peace in the Middle East is a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine with Jerusalem as a shared capital.

“I personally think that’s a mistake for the Democratic and Republican parties to call for Jerusalem to be the capital just for the Jews,” he said.

Carter did not discuss the heightened security at American embassies and consulates around the world after an attack this week that killed the U.S. ambassador in Libya, but he parted ways with President Obama on the question of whether Egypt is an American ally after Obama told an interviewer that “I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy” after protesters attacked the U.S. embassy in Cairo this week.

Carter, who knows Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi personally and monitored recent elections in Egypt and Libya, said Egypt is an ally of the United States and “we ought to make sure that we continue the long-standing friendship we’ve had” by encouraging efforts to forge a democratic Egyptian government.

He noted that after the U.S. independence in 1776, it took a dozen years to finalize the constitution and solidify the government, “so we can’t expect the Egyptians to do it in less than one year. I think we have to be patient with them and let them find their own way, but give them support so they won’t go in the wrong direction,” Carter said.

On the civil strife in Syria, Carter said it would not be appropriate for the United States to intervene militarily, but he would like to see the United Nations call for free elections that would allow the people to choose the nation’s future direction.

“But if that’s not possible, then I think we just have wait and see how much of a tragedy is going to develop,” he said. “There’s no way to predict what is going to happen in the next few months.”

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

From Juan Cole's blog:

I love Juan Cole.

Several of the points he makes seem to me to be the kind of tragic death spiral I hate to see people get themselves into. For reasons that may seem like good ones, certainly at the time, people are protesting at American embassies. This is going to draw press because large protests at any embassy probably should get our attention. People, seeing these protests, become justifiably concerned about traveling to those nations. So plans are changed, money goes elsewhere. Which leads to more economic pain. Which just makes things worse in those nations, which creates more justification for protests, which leads to people changing their plans etc. The people protesting are doing what they think is correct. The people who are avoiding traveling to places where protests have erupted are justifiable in doing so, particularly if it is their nation's embassy being protested. The protests has led to a heightened presence of Marines at those embassies which will almost certainly be demagogued as aggression on the part of the Americans. However, the American officials have no choice *but* to have a more formidable security presence in those embassies. If the nation can do something to prevent diplomatic staff from being taken hostage as they were in 1979, then they are obliged to do so.

Cheers
Aj

[ruffryder]

Originally Posted by weatherboi

Our local news is focusing on Terry Jones and his cult clan. They are the Quran burning gang down in Gainesville and have somehow found themselves mixed up in this by supporting an anti Muslim/Islam video and refusing to recant. He locally promotes more Muslim/Islam hate here and gets people going. Again, this is what we are hearing locally in the media. I know there are other stories out there about why, what and who is responsible for this recent tragedy, but you don't see them on the local news here. .

(Newser) – Egypt wants Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who is allegedly behind the anti-Muslim film that sparked protests across the Islamic world, behind bars—or worse. Cairo authorities ordered the arrest of Nakoula and six other Egyptian Coptic Christians living in the US, all of whom they say were involved with the Innocence of Muslims. They also issued an arrest warrant for Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones, the BBC reports, accusing him and the Coptic Christians of "insulting the Islamic religion." Egypt says all of the above, if convicted, could face the death penalty; it will notify Interpol and US authorities of the warrants. Iran also wants the movie-makers to face justice.


I'm not sure how this all ties in with what happened in Libya but lots of people are blaming it all on this. I think the attack would have happened regardless and this is just something to put the blame on. . however, Egypt now wants their heads.

[Toughy]

I think one of the issues around this film has to do with free speech and what that means in different cultures. I heard an interesting explanation for the differences. This is in the context of non-secular governments where it is flatly illegal to insult, demean, disrespect any prophet...whether it be Mohammed or Moses or Jesus. Folks go to jail for that.

In the US version of free speech, we are free to insult whoever we want. In most of these Muslim countries, their free speech is to be free from insult. That help explain why Muslim countries do NOT understand why those asshats are not in jail. Since most of these countries do not have free press (not that our corporate media is free...we just like to delude ourselves), it is also difficult for them to understand our government had nothing to do with disgusting film.

Cultural awareness helps understand many things.

[Martina]

There was an article in Al Jazeera by an American academic describing the U.S. as an outlier where protection of speech is concerned. LINK

I don't know. I firmly believe in free speech. I am grateful for it. Remember Mappelthorpe? If we didn't have these protections, we would always be fighting with fundamentalists of all stripes to be able express ourselves.

I still can't get past the fact that in the case of this film, it was made by members of an oppressed minority of a Muslim country. We are asked to look at the consequences of our bad actions in the region. I think it's only fair to ask others to do the same.

I guess this isn't rational. But it has tested me a little. One thing that helped was a story on NPR about a twitter thread called #MuslimRage. It reminded me how small these protests really are and how unrepresentative. LINK

Anyway, the green on blue attacks are hard to process. As I hear and read more about them, I still just don't understand. It is a cultural gulf too wide for me to reach across. How can a soldier showing you pictures of his wife or blowing his nose in front of you enrage you to the point of shooting him? But of course there's more to it. One of our drones killed how many women and children this week?

One commentator today was saying that there is a lot of conflict within the Afghan security forces also, so their folks are already on edge.

[Prudence]

What a mess.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I think one of the issues around this film has to do with free speech and what that means in different cultures. I heard an interesting explanation for the differences. This is in the context of non-secular governments where it is flatly illegal to insult, demean, disrespect any prophet...whether it be Mohammed or Moses or Jesus. Folks go to jail for that.

In the US version of free speech, we are free to insult whoever we want. In most of these Muslim countries, their free speech is to be free from insult. That help explain why Muslim countries do NOT understand why those asshats are not in jail. Since most of these countries do not have free press (not that our corporate media is free...we just like to delude ourselves), it is also difficult for them to understand our government had nothing to do with disgusting film.

Cultural awareness helps understand many things.

Here is our quandary. We cannot and should not allow ourselves to be maneuvered into backing off from a commitment, a strenuous commitment at that. Yes, other nations may have blasphemy and regardless of my feelings about them (and, for the record, I think they make about as much sense as laws against interracial or interfaith marriages and for much the reason) they are entirely entitled to have whatever laws their culture may dream up. That said, what we should not do is turn over the filmmaker or try to muzzle him or ourselves in order to appease the people turning out into the streets.

It would be one thing, perhaps, if he traveled to Pakistan or some other nation with blasphemy laws, did something in country that violated their laws, and then was turned over to the authorities for trial. He'd be in that nation as a guest and while I'm not comfortable with the idea of an American citizen being tried for something that isn't a crime in the States, so be it. But whether or not others like the idea, he *does* have the right to make any film he wishes and we should not be shy about defending the principles of free speech even while we condemn the xenophobia of this movie.

Toughy, how is 'freedom of speech' a right to be 'free from insult'? Aren't those two things fundamentally incompatible? If you have a right to not be insulted doesn't that mean that you can say what you wish provided that no one is insulted? Wouldn't that preclude any speech that might give insult to someone? I can't see how it could do otherwise. Certainly, a society might choose that it is better that the majority never have to be exposed to memes which they find disagreeable but such a society cannot be said to have a right to free speech.

Protester: "The elites of our nation line their pockets while the poor starve! Is this justice?"

Judge: "You have insulted the elites of our country who care about the poor as much as anyone. I know, I'm an elite. Guilty!"

Protester: "The homosexuals of our great nation are arrested and for what? For loving another person? Why is this a crime? Because a holy book says it should be?"

Judge: "You have insulted the religious sensibilities of many pious people in our nation who believe that the holy book is perfect to its very last letter. Guilty!"

Can we say that people in such a nation have free speech? In all nations, people have the right to praise the government, lionize the rich, express their piety and respect for the traditions of women staying home and having babies. In other words, you don't need free speech to support the status quo or lift up the powerful for praise and adulation. What you need free speech for is to do the opposite and I just don't see how *any* country can be said to have free speech if you cannot say things that would be offensive to the majority and/or those in power without fear of punishment.


Cheers
Aj

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Here is our quandary. We cannot and should not allow ourselves to be maneuvered into backing off from a commitment, a strenuous commitment at that. Yes, other nations may have blasphemy and regardless of my feelings about them (and, for the record, I think they make about as much sense as laws against interracial or interfaith marriages and for much the reason) they are entirely entitled to have whatever laws their culture may dream up. That said, what we should not do is turn over the filmmaker or try to muzzle him or ourselves in order to appease the people turning out into the streets.

It would be one thing, perhaps, if he traveled to Pakistan or some other nation with blasphemy laws, did something in country that violated their laws, and then was turned over to the authorities for trial. He'd be in that nation as a guest and while I'm not comfortable with the idea of an American citizen being tried for something that isn't a crime in the States, so be it. But whether or not others like the idea, he *does* have the right to make any film he wishes and we should not be shy about defending the principles of free speech even while we condemn the xenophobia of this movie.

Toughy, how is 'freedom of speech' a right to be 'free from insult'? Aren't those two things fundamentally incompatible? If you have a right to not be insulted doesn't that mean that you can say what you wish provided that no one is insulted? Wouldn't that preclude any speech that might give insult to someone? I can't see how it could do otherwise. Certainly, a society might choose that it is better that the majority never have to be exposed to memes which they find disagreeable but such a society cannot be said to have a right to free speech.

Protester: "The elites of our nation line their pockets while the poor starve! Is this justice?"

Judge: "You have insulted the elites of our country who care about the poor as much as anyone. I know, I'm an elite. Guilty!"

Protester: "The homosexuals of our great nation are arrested and for what? For loving another person? Why is this a crime? Because a holy book says it should be?"

Judge: "You have insulted the religious sensibilities of many pious people in our nation who believe that the holy book is perfect to its very last letter. Guilty!"

Can we say that people in such a nation have free speech? In all nations, people have the right to praise the government, lionize the rich, express their piety and respect for the traditions of women staying home and having babies. In other words, you don't need free speech to support the status quo or lift up the powerful for praise and adulation. What you need free speech for is to do the opposite and I just don't see how *any* country can be said to have free speech if you cannot say things that would be offensive to the majority and/or those in power without fear of punishment.


Cheers
Aj

What a beautiful post Aj.

In particular, I like how you developed the idea of what free speech, as a tool that is used in a democratic society, can be understood as fully as possible. I think it is so important to internalize the concept of what free speech means and the responsibility that comes with it. The ability to address offensive issues without fear of reprisal and punishment for bringing to attention the very items that affect humans in social, cultural, political, educational situations (to name just a few).

[Martina]

Based on that Al Jazeera article I cited, I think it is more common even in western countries to police speech than not to.

I think what Toughy was quoting was a play on words illustrating the difference of emphasis in values. It is probably true that more people in the world value a public sphere in which speech can be regulated than one in which it is not.

I am with Dreadgeek on this. I am a strong proponent of free speech, but I think that the Al Jazeera article is probably factually correct. I disagree with the author's intent -- that we (the U.S.) as outliers ought to move more toward the middle.

As far as I am concerned, that would end up in interminable legal battles with the religious right who would take any opportunity to start limiting people's opportunities to express ideas and experiences that conflict with what they believe is "right."

I do believe that in voluntary communities -- like butchfemmeplanet.com, for example -- that people can police away. We just have to live with the consequences.

I don't think that we have had serious problems differentiating between harrassment and freedom of speech, but I would have to ask a lawyer. But people are protected in the U.S. from being harrassed on the job. If we could not have freedom of speech and the right not to be harrassed in public space, then I would have to rethink. But we seem to be succeeding in making that distinction.

[Corkey]

The whole thing comes down to:
free speech v.s. violent action.

In this country and perhaps no other that I know of one can say what they want as long as it doesn't harm physically another, i.e.: no yelling fire in a crowded theater type of thing.

In other countries such as our neighbor to the north hate speech is regulated where here it is not.

There was a young woman on Chris Matthews the other day who came from an Islamic country, who discussed the indoctrination of Islam in the early years of up bringing. She grew up immersed in the Koran. When she went to university she traveled and came to realize that other cultures had differing view points on religion and free speech. She (and I'm paraphrasing here) said that she sees a need for education of other cultures in Islam. How to get there: she and others she is working with are doing that education. I fully support her efforts.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

I am with Dreadgeek on this. I am a strong proponent of free speech, but I think that the Al Jazeera article is probably factually correct. I disagree with the author's intent -- that we (the U.S.) as outliers ought to move more toward the middle.

I'm actually rather concerned that in the US there is so much sympathy for the viewpoint that we should have laws that protect people from hearing things they might find offensive. I say that because as a minority of a minority of a minority the chances that I will say something offensive to *someone* in the majority is very high. If I write about atheism or, for that matter, evolutionary biology I will offend many religious people who would just as soon not have to be reminded that there are atheists. If I write about queer things then I am in danger of offending people for whom the very statement "I'm here, I'm queer, I refuse to apologize for either" is an attack on the very foundations of their most dearly held religious beliefs. If I write about racism, I'm in danger of offending the white majority. So operating *simply* from self-interest, I am opposed to almost all forms of censorship including the most subtle and insidious of them which is self-censorship.

If, one day, we should listen to the siren songs of censorship which will tell us that there will be peace, justice and harmony if only people can't say things which might give offense, we queer people will quickly find ourselves in an untenable position. Such laws--or social codes--will never be such that it would be the case that as a minority I can say "<insert slur against whites here> hate black people and live only to oppress us" but a white person couldn't say "<insert slur against blacks here> hate white people and live only to <insert anti-black stereotype here>". Never. Majorities simply don't do that to themselves. Rather, what would be more likely is that if I spoke out against racism I might quickly find myself in the dock. Why? Because, as the many threads about white privilege here amply demonstrate, whenever you start pointing out racism or privilege someone is going to get offended. Should *offense* be the touchstone we use to decide what goes to far or should it be something else? I would submit that it should be something *other* than offense.

Yes, I understand that other cultures look at the issue differently but my own reading of history leads me to not trust human beings in large groups and to hold majorities suspect. I fear not for the person who wants to praise Jesus loudly and long but for the person who does not believe in Jesus. I do not fear for the person who wants to wave the flag and shout USA! USA! at the top of their lungs. Rather, I fear for the person who wants to talk about the people who are 'faces at the bottom of the well'. They need free speech and they need to be able to speak out without fear of governmental retribution.

Speech that gives succor to the majority and those in power will never need protection, it is the minority report, the lonely voice, the voice of the outsider and the free thinker that need protection. All the protests at all the embassies in all the world doesn't change that.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

One other point I wanted to make. In his 2012 book, "You Can't Read This Book" British author Nick Cohen (a man with as sterling left-wing credentials as you can find in the West) takes the reader on a tour of how speech is constrained in the UK. Now, this might sound weird to Americans but one thing Cohen pilloried was that in the UK something can be prevented from being published by prior restraint. Let's say that someone wanted to publish a book about Rupert Murdoch or David Cameron or Tony Blair. Those men could set their pet lawyers loose upon the hapless author and her publisher and have them sued so that they couldn't publish their book even if every word in it was true and sourced to the heavens. Simply the fact that the subject of the book might be offended by it is enough for a UK court to shut down publication. Chilling? Yes, as a matter of fact, it *has* had a chilling effect and one effect of this is that the powerful in Britain need not worry overly much about articles or books coming out that put them in a bad light. This goes from MPs to the banks to Murdoch media octopus.

Censorship favors the powerful, not the powerless.

Cheers
Aj

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by Corkey

The whole thing comes down to:
free speech v.s. violent action.

In this country and perhaps no other that I know of one can say what they want as long as it doesn't harm physically another, i.e.: no yelling fire in a crowded theater type of thing.

In other countries such as our neighbor to the north hate speech is regulated where here it is not.

There was a young woman on Chris Matthews the other day who came from an Islamic country, who discussed the indoctrination of Islam in the early years of up bringing. She grew up immersed in the Koran. When she went to university she traveled and came to realize that other cultures had differing view points on religion and free speech. She (and I'm paraphrasing here) said that she sees a need for education of other cultures in Islam. How to get there: she and others she is working with are doing that education. I fully support her efforts.

One of the things I appreciate, especially in Higher Education institutions, are efforts to diversify campus populations and incorporate curriculum involving other cultures. The university where I earned my masters degree is equipped with an International Student Affairs Office. I think most college/university campuses have these nowadays.

At the time I was earning my masters in Communication, the director and his assistant were also peers in my cohort. We worked on issues just like the interviewee spoke about on the Chris Matthews show. What many might not be completely in the know about is that the process is slow in building specialized curriculum at a higher ed institutional level. It's an intracate dance of power between governing agency and those who oversee the regulatory arm of education. To give an example of how arduous this process is, university settings must meet criteria in construction of curriculum by department and simultaneously, if possible, be able to meet funding requirements so that a class can be constructed within particular departments with a professor who is adept in creating syllabae designed specifically for this cultural education need. I was fortunate to attend to unversities in Oregon (a public one for my bachelors; a private one for my masters) where both universities had staff in strategic departments (sociology, communication, business and mathematics) who had professors who incorporated a deeper cultural understanding of these types of ideas expressed by the Chris Matthews' interviewee.

As of late, even though I graduated from my masters programme, it appears that International Studies is still a project that is not fully expanded enough in terms of cross-cultural studies, which I think is very important in an orchestrated attempt to not only meet a need for International students but to provide an education for those who do not fall under the rubric within International Studies. That's the unfortunate part of the process of higher education issues that most American universities face nowadays and certainly is deserving of a more focused attempt at creating access to this particular type of education, overall.

[Toughy]

Toughy, how is 'freedom of speech' a right to be 'free from insult'? Aren't those two things fundamentally incompatible? If you have a right to not be insulted doesn't that mean that you can say what you wish provided that no one is insulted? Wouldn't that preclude any speech that might give insult to someone? I can't see how it could do otherwise. Certainly, a society might choose that it is better that the majority never have to be exposed to memes which they find disagreeable but such a society cannot be said to have a right to free speech.

First I did not think up the 'to insult' vs 'from insult'. I heard it on, I think, the Randi Rhodes show (progressive talk radio syndicated)

Your argument and questions are a perfect example of the problem. You view free speech from a USA cultural perspective and they don't. You define free speech from that perspective and others do not.......hell France does not agree with our ideas around free speech. As Martina pointed out lots of folks define free speech from a different cultural perspective and narrative. There are few 'hard line in the sand' concepts that all cultures can agree on...or should.... such as slavery, child porn, child sex workers, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal to name a few.

And as I said earlier and Corkey has repeated: The response to an insult (free speech) should not be one of violence in any culture. I think no violence belongs in the 'hard line in the sand' category.....but humans are not there yet. Non-violent protest should be the response and the large majority of the response to that obnoxious crap has been non-violent.

And we should all remember the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and the ex-seals security folks is not connected to the film.

The protests (mostly non-violent) occurring in many Islamic countries are about that film. A 15 minutes Arabic translation of the film was shown on (right wing) Egyptian TV and that is when the protests began.

I did a lot of nodding my head yes when reading your posts.

[dreadgeek]

Toughy;

I don't have any issue with non-violent protests. I *do* have issues with violent protests and blasphemy laws. And I'm not looking at this issue from the point of view of the USA and that we are right. I'm looking at it from three points of view, two of them not my own. I look at it from a writer. That is *my* point of view and I want to be able to write a story about what it might look like to live in a Christianist Theocracy without fear of losing my liberty or my life. I'm not saying we live in such a society but the distance between that society and us now is the boundary between having the right to free speech and not.

No, I'm looking at this from the point of view of Salman Rushdie who wrote a book a quarter century ago and had a fatwa placed against him calling for his death. As it turns out, I had thought the fatwa had been lifted and then it turns out that three days ago, Ayatollah Hassan Sanei of Iran, reissued the bounty on Rushdie's head to the tune of 320,000 pounds. I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person burning the American flag, an action I disagree with but think should be protected. I'm looking at it from the point of Pussy Riot, locked up on a charge that comes down to blasphemy. I'm looking at it from the point of view of ACT-UP and Queer Nation back in 1992. I'm looking at it from the point of view of my parents in Birmingham in the 1960s. I'm looking at it from the point of view of every time anyone stood up and spoke truth to power when power would rather they shut up. Power would rather the powerless shut the hell up and if they think they can get away with it, the rich and the orthodox will use the power of the state to make sure that the powerless don't say uncomfortable things.

Peaceful protests outside embassies do not concern me. They are exercising their right to give vent to their anger and, as such, I might contemplate it but does not concern me.

Saying that people should be put to death or imprisoned because of what they write or speak or film concerns me. That Vladimir Putin had Pussy Riot locked up on a charge that comes down to blasphemy concerns me. Bounties on the heads of writers concern me. The detention of Bradley Manning concerns me. These are all attempts to silence voices that are inconvenient for power. Pharmaceutical companies being able to slap of writ of prior restraint on a journalist because they've written an article that shows fixing of results in trials concerns me.

Like I said before, I don't trust majorities, I don't trust mobs, I don't trust the rich, I don't trust the church, I don't trust the state and I don't trust the powerful. Majorities gravitate toward tyrannies, a democracy can be as tyrannical as a totalitarian state. Mobs are just the crowd at the lynching, the people at the witch burning, whenever bullying gets social sanction. The rich will gravitate toward plutocracy and the church will implement theocracy if they can get away with it. The only thing that stands between us and those various flavors of dystopia is the ability to write against it, march against it, rail against it and convince others of the rightness of our warnings. If that means risking that some people might be offended at the rantings of some fool then so be it.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Toughy

First I did not think up the 'to insult' vs 'from insult'. I heard it on, I think, the Randi Rhodes show (progressive talk radio syndicated)

Your argument and questions are a perfect example of the problem. You view free speech from a USA cultural perspective and they don't. You define free speech from that perspective and others do not.......hell France does not agree with our ideas around free speech. As Martina pointed out lots of folks define free speech from a different cultural perspective and narrative. There are few 'hard line in the sand' concepts that all cultures can agree on...or should.... such as slavery, child porn, child sex workers, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal to name a few.

And as I said earlier and Corkey has repeated: The response to an insult (free speech) should not be one of violence in any culture. I think no violence belongs in the 'hard line in the sand' category.....but humans are not there yet. Non-violent protest should be the response and the large majority of the response to that obnoxious crap has been non-violent.

And we should all remember the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and the ex-seals security folks is not connected to the film.

The protests (mostly non-violent) occurring in many Islamic countries are about that film. A 15 minutes Arabic translation of the film was shown on (right wing) Egyptian TV and that is when the protests began.

I did a lot of nodding my head yes when reading your posts.