Confrontation and Contradiction

Over the course of the past week I've written about the protests as a phenomenon that used the 'Innocence of Muslims' trailer merely as a launchpad. Simultaneously, however, I've written about the need to defend freedom of expression, including the video, at all costs. Arguing that the riots and protests are about more than a clip on YouTube while defending the clip itself is not a contradiction.

In contrast, CNN asked the question on Wednesday, following the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo's publication of a cartoon satirizing the prophet Muhammad, whether it represented free speech or incitement.

Equally, but perhaps even more annoyingly (read the comments section if you really want to get wound up), the Guardian polls its readers about the Hebdo cartoon: "an important assertion of free speech or a senseless and dangerous provocation?" Failure to realize that the two are mutually exclusive needs to be addressed.

Likewise, the United States administration's attempt to cajole its way into Pakistani hearts with this rather frustrating advertisement spews up problems that go beyond oxymoron. The ad replays footage of President Obama's speech in which he condemned the violent attackers. The message runs:

Since our founding the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

At the time I noted how irritating and unnecessary that second sentence was and is. What's more, on this occassion, the all-important corollary has been left on the cutting-room floor:

But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Instead, the ad cuts to a shot of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and we watch as the marbles fall out of her mouth. Speaking of the video, she states:

The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. American's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. [Italics mine]

Of course, drawing distance between the filmmakers and the government is important, but to say they "absolutely reject its content", like a jury condemning a suspect on account not only of his actions but also for his dress-sense, is besides the point. This is not a foray into film criticism.

It's unknown how much or how little influence Obama and Clinton had in piecing together the advertisement; it was edited and distributed by the US embassy in Islamabad. I suspect, as a PR exercise, it may have a marginal impact, but the shameful redaction of key statements pertaining to the egregious overreaction of many protestors, far outweighs any short-term gain.

Confrontations of this nature, whether we like it or not, take place in our own backyard, because it attacks our society at the core. And it's personal.

On Monday in Beirut Hezbollah's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah said, "the U.S. should understand that if it broadcasts the film in full it will face very dangerous repercussions around the world." Hezbollah repeatedly stirs unrest in Lebanon and elsewhere. They are exactly the sort of organization intent on manipulating anger towards the west for their own ends. They should not be taken lightly. As Michael Totten writes:

Nasrallah knows perfectly well that when an individual uploads a video to YouTube, it doesn’t count as 'the United States broadcasting a film.' That’s actually his point. He’s not threatening the United States in the abstract. He’s threatening you. If you insult Hassan Nasrallah’s religion on the Internet, terrorists may come after you.