It's not about a movie

Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie was not about a book. The Danish cartoon fiasco was not about a cartoon. Nor are the protests engulfing nations across the Arabian continent about a film. Were it not for the fourteen minute clip on YouTube, the Muslim demonstrators and attackers would have found their reasons.

All of which makes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's declaration that she finds the film to be "disgusting and reprehensible" even less palatable. I remember how debate about the Danish cartoons was regularly introduced in 2006 with the meaningless annotation: 'they're not funny, but...'.

This is unacceptable. Does it not trouble Clinton, and other derisive voices in the media, that they in fact share the opinion of the murderous mobs and Islamist goons? Perhaps their chants of "Obama, we are all Osama" should prod the ribs if nothing else. Displays of appeasement and contrition seldom satisfy a child, so why would they halt the thugs intent on erasing American and Western liberty? It's worth repeating, with these people there is no common ground.

Michael Totten, a good ally during such times, raises an interesting point; so often in these countries where Islam is the dominant religion, what one sees on the television and reads in the newspapers is controlled by the state. For the attackers to accept, therefore, that the United States government has absolutely nothing to do with the film or its distribution is unlikely and presents a major hurdle.

Moreover, reports from Khartoum detail how British and German embassies have also been attacked, as though further evidence were required to prove that, no, these people weren't whipped from their peaceful and broad-minded slumber into a justifiable frenzy. Protestors have also set fire the Israeli flag in Bangladesh. Returning to the matter of the First Amendment, Totten writes:

The West will not, cannot, change its laws to accommodate anybody’s emotions, especially not people on the other side of the planet who replace our flag with the Al-Qaeda flag and murder our diplomats.

Black banners and flags bearing the symbol of Al-Qaeda are not household items. These people are dangerous, scratching the itch to start a fight, and intent on destroying the one pillar upon which we ought most proudly base our society: the freedom of speech. 

Newsnight and the Naked Prince

I recently applied for a work experience position on Newsnight's production team. During the online application they invited me to write a critique of a recent episode. I took it upon myself to liberally slag them off. I'll let you know how it goes.

In responding to your prompt I feel compelled to address the issue of the naked photographs of Prince Harry, a discussion about which was broadcast on 22nd August.

The issue here was threefold. First, what are the general implications of Prince Harry’s actions in Las Vegas with regard to the monarchy’s domestic and international reputation? Second, further to the public’s perception, do media outlets like the BBC, alongside tabloid and broadsheet newspapers have a responsibility to reprint the pictures not only as a public interest piece, but also given the constitutional relationship between the British citizen and the royal family. Third, what ramifications has the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards had for newspapers and publishing groups?

A roundtable debate of the topic was introduced by a video link narrated by Kirsty Wark. Markedly, the BBC on this occasion elected not to show the photos of Prince Harry. Indeed, not only did they choose not to broadcast the images, which, I will argue, they had a responsibility to do, but they similarly failed to acknowledge or explain their decision.

And so, while the viewing audience was challenged by the vocal swipes of Vanessa Feltz and Max Clifford (in sandals and Bermuda shorts), over the table hung the essential problem of not having actually seen the images of which the guests spoke.

At the core of the BBC’s values stands the proud declaration of honesty, independence, and impartiality. In this case, the Newsnight team demonstrated an inexcusable lack of courage and conviction in failing to show the images; impartial and independent they were not. What’s more, by ignoring the matter, and remaining silent about their decision, they showed inexcusable dishonesty, totally averse to the values, guidelines, and reputation of the organization.

Prince Harry, a member of the royal family, to which the general public pay a not inconsiderable amount in taxation, is potentially a future king of the British Commonwealth. In so doing, he would become the head of the state, the head of the armed forces, and the head of the church. Newsnight were right to question their guests about the rather irresponsible actions of the prince, but they would do well to question their own actions concerning their obligations to the fee-paying audience.

To conclude I would argue strongly that whether the decision to withhold the photographs was borne out of reverence towards the prince, a reaction against the scrutiny of the Leveson Enquiry, a choice taken in light of the ready availability of the images online, or simply a show of respect for Harry’s privacy, the decision ought to have been expounded and opened for discussion to the guests on the show.

Censorship from East to West

In 1644 John Milton concluded Areopagitica, his polemical exploration of censorship and freedom of speech by noting that those who most seek to silence the voice of others often turn, without noticing the irony, to the license of texts that arguably most deserve censorship themselves.

And so, four centuries later, when Islamic fascists appeal to the teachings of their scriptures in order to justify scaling the walls of buildings, terrorizing diplomats and consular workers, burning flags, and killing innocent civilians, why is so little criticism leveled against the profoundly sinister belief system that they maintain?

Before the US ambassador to Libya was killed, the American embassy in Cairo was similarly attacked. Nauseatingly however, the staff there issued a statement in the subsequent hours, presumably while still dusting themselves down, that ran: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

I'll wait while you wipe the vomit from your mouth. Excuse me, but that's precisely what it's for. As Michael Totten writes, "free speech doesn't mean anything unless offensive speech is protected." Whoever wishes to make a video and upload it to YouTube, just as Sam Bacile has done (link here), should and must be shielded by the United States government.

By recoiling as though the attackers, not only in Libya and Egypt, but also in Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Gaza, have cause for their reaction and warrant our allowances is utterly inexcusable. "Let's not pretend", continues Totten, "that they're just overreacting to a reasonable grievance and that there's room for common ground."

Bacile has gone into hiding. Multiple US embassies around the world are heightening their security. Meanwhile, cosmopolitan nations like Britain and India are twisting and contorting, fearful of similar attacks. Channel 4 pulls the documentary, Islam: The Untold Story, from its schedule. Likewise, distributors in India are so spineless as to shun Salman Rushdie's movie adaptation of his most reputable novel, Midnight's Children for fear of an Islamic uprising and for reasons so invisible they defy description.

This will not do. Indeed, President Obama would do well to recognize the significance of every nuance of every word when giving speeches like the one today. His primary message ran as follows:

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

If the foundations upon which the First Amendment was built are to resist the acid rain of apologists, contortionists, and the spineless commentators who direct their gaze away from the Islamic mobs in Libya and elsewhere, then statements like President Obama's require a simple but telling omission; we no longer reject the ridicule and denigration of religious belief, but rather we welcome it, and we protect it.

Immortality

I wish that he could have written a different book with a different ending, and I wish that he was the one answering these questions for you. And though it wouldn’t have been titled Immortality, Christopher would at least have been on the scene to explain his odyssey himself.

Carol Blue talks to Amazon about her husband, 10.9.2012.

Peter Bradshaw

Yesterday morning I saw Peter Bradshaw, the Guardian's chief film critic walking down Great Malborough Street. He looked markedly less old than he often does in their roundtable discussions, but he wore these strangely cobbled heavyset shoes, the sort of things of which Thom Yorke would be proud. He was muttering to himself and gesturing to no one in particular with his idle hand, something that men of a certain age and disposition seem to do when formulating arguments in their head. Admittedly, for all his ticks and mannerisms, I seldom find myself disagreeing with his opinions on cinema and films, which I find quite interesting given what one assumes is a vast social and cultural expanse separating us. His review of Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master was published a day or two ago. Five stars. Bradshaw calls the two hour and fifteen minute journey through the origins of Scientology "something special" and, for the poster, labels it "simply unmissable". Need I remind you that it also boasts a score by Jonny Greenwood? (I know) And from the trailer, perhaps one of the best trailers I've ever seen, I'm happy to wager that the man talking to himself on Great Malborough Street with orthopedic shoes ain't wrong.

Stoked On Life

Why did I ever leave?

Pedro Pinto and Me

Subsequent to a succession of several strokes of fortune, on Monday I have been invited to shadow CNN's chief sports anchor and all-round nice guy, Pedro Pinto, a viral sensation for this, and already famous for having made Roger Federer cry like a girl, as he researches, writes, presents, and interviews Ali Al-Habsi. The Wigan goalkeeper is notable not only by virtue of hailing from Oman, but also for being one of the Premier League's most consistent, unsung, and consistently unsung goalkeepers. If I'm afforded the opportunity however, do not fear, dear reader, I'll lambast him for touching Adam Lallana's 25 yard wonder-strike onto the crossbar in Saints' loss two-weeks ago. That would have changed the whole complexion of the game.

Default

We called it: Stanley Donwood's revival of the London Views linocut technique for his recent artwork, entitled Lost Angeles, comes to the fore of the first official video from Thom Yorke's Atoms for Peace. Six years ago, just as The Eraser channeled haunted tones and stretched electro chords on the website before the full release, Default, the first single warmly welcomes aficionados into the A4P club. Having seen them in Santa Barbara two years ago, proudly witnessing and admiring the chemistry of a Yorke-led-super-group, many of us have been excited about this for a long time. Now it comes. The video is underwhelming but the track is not.

Afterlife

My dear friend, JP develops an argument about faith, pertaining to the (non)existence of god in the following way: my brother has studied civil engineering and can therefore analyse the specs of a bridge and conclude that the bridge will stand; while I have studied philosophy and can likewise look at the evidence and conclude that there is no god. Neat. Similarly, we may conclude that there is no afterlife (which almost came out as afterlie) in the following way:

The proof that there is no afterlife is that Christopher Hitchens is not sending us columns, essays, books, perversities, aperçus and polemics from it.

~ Henry Allen 31.8.2012.

UPDATE: The man himself (not the Hitch) has outfleshed things for us in the comments to this post. Go there.

The World's Local Wank

A broken hand and nigh-on four thousand rubs later, Thom and I returned from our holiday (!) in Marbs last night. Fortunately, the blaze went too hard too early and cashed all its chips after a day or so. It was a stint of many lessons, none of which are suitable for broadcast, suffice to say (what an awful expression) that questionable women and fraud departments don't really gel.