I tell fellow Egyptians and fellow Americans it's about us, not about them - Mona Eltahawy

[Are_grits_groceries]

<snip>
When my fellow Americans ask me that tired question, "Why do they hate us?", my initial response is usually: "It's not about you." When a fellow Egyptian wants to talk about hating the US, I flip that response on its head and tell her: "It's not about America – it's about you." The truth is somewhere in the middle, but too many people are willing to use it as a football in an endless match of political manipulation.

For a slightly subtler response, I tell my fellow Americans that "they" don't hate them for their freedom but, rather, because successive US governments all too willingly and knowingly supported dictators who denied their populations any kind of freedom. As a US citizen, I cherish the first amendment. It's what I whipped out as I stood alongside Muslims and non-Muslims in Lower Manhattan in 2010 to defend the right of an Islamic community centre to open close to Ground Zero. We told those who opposed the centre that that first amendment was what gave them the right to protest and at the same time guaranteed freedom to worship right there on that spot.
<snip>
Mubarak is gone, and Egypt's president is from the Muslim Brotherhood movement – long vilified as the "lunatics with beards". It is at this point that I tell fellow Egyptians it's about them, and not about America.

That YouTube film – not made or distributed by the US government – was posted at least two months before ultra-conservative Salafists called for protests at the US embassy. Why? Understanding that the president, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, must now occupy that same middle ground as Mubarak did, the Salafists are all too happy to flex rightwing political muscle. Why else did they call their protest in Cairo on the anniversary of the attacks on 11 September 2001?

Morsi, not wanting to concede the moral high ground, remained silent for too long, stuck between his memory of being the opposition and an awareness that he's now the president. That's what I mean when I tell fellow Egyptians that it's about us, not America.
<snip>
worth the whole read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/14/egypt-us-hatred-film-protests?CMP=twt_gu

The reasons are much more complex than the blasphemy about Mohammed. Many react to that immediately, but there are much deeper problems driving the entire protests.

[Scootaloo]

1. Careful with pointing out that reality is complex

You'll be accused of "supporting the terrorists" and being part of the "blame America first crowd," and of course, you'll be an "apologist for islamic fundies."

Shit you never thought you'd see 'round these parts, eh?

[Are_grits_groceries]

3. I shall answer as Master W. Pooh would:

"Oh bother!"

[riderinthestorm]

4. Because if you support freedom of speech and IA, you'll get called an Islamophobe bigot

More shit you never thought you'd see 'round these parts, eh?

The reality is that it IS complex. With first world countries experiencing violence and protests like the UK, Australia and Indonesia, its gone beyond being strictly an anti-imperialist protest (with DUers grudgingly admitting there MAY be minor religious overtones) and into really troubling territory.

The article makes a point that you can't dismiss the influences of the MB and the Salafists in these actions.

[Scootaloo]

5. Supporting freedom of speech in this case is like rallying a "save the grass!" campaign

It's more than a little pointless, since the dude's right to free speech was not ever in question. Only whether he was using that right in a responsible manner. Do you think there would be so many threads on DU supporting the freedom of speech for someone who remade "Birth of a Nation" (blackface included) or "Jud Süß"? Or would there be a lot of threads calling it out as a terrible fucking idea, deeply offensive, and even calling for protests or boycotts? So long as it's a film dehumanizing Muslims though? Well, from what I've seen that appears to be the only time these big DU rallies around "free speech" ever occur. Why is that, do you think?

At any rate. I don't think anyone was denying the influence of fundamentalist elements, since we knew from the outset that they were the ones organizing the protests in the first place.

[riderinthestorm]

6. No, there are more than a few DUers who claim the riots are solely about US imperialistic

goals, killings and exploitation. Maybe even most DUers actually.... which is why those who initially spoke up about defending the moviemakers' 1A rights were so mercilessly beaten back by the cultural relativists.

Now the 1A defenders are beginning to gain some traction on DU and suddenly its all about how the situation is "complex".

I'm just complaining about the knee jerking I guess. There's very little discussion anymore about issues - its all so adversarial without dialogue or an attempt at understanding. Your post just amplified it for me so I responded with the insults from the OTHER side.

As for your point about "free speech" and we only have these about Islam then you haven't been here long enough to have seen the many thousands of Occupy threads, or the Iraq war protest threads, or Code Pink threads.... probably 98% of "free speech" threads revolve around other issues than Islam. If you're only "seeing" them in relation to Islam then I'd respectfully suggest you open up your perspective.

[Scootaloo]

7. "Mercilessly beaten back by the cultural relativists"?

I think you and I read very different editions of DU, judging from that line.

[riderinthestorm]

8. Fun with words.

Sorry, I just think the slams directed against those who were trying to wade into the muddle at the beginning of this latest episode does sometimes resemble a "merciless beating" by the crowd here on DU.

But its all good if you saw lots of constructive dialogue and I didn't.

[Scootaloo]

9. Actually I rather saw the opposite

People pointing out that a hate film that dehumanizes its targets isn't worth DU'ers vigorous support were the ones getting shouted down, in the name of "freedom of speech."

[riderinthestorm]

10. Uh, I don't think I've seen a single DUer support the actual film

Have you?

I've seen DUers support the filmmakers' right to make the film (and everyone agrees it IS a hateful film) but I haven't seen anyone support the actual film. I would guess that any DUer who believed the film had any merit is pretty immediately TS'd.

[Scootaloo]

11. The filmmaker's right isn't in question, though...

Well, in hindsight it actually is, I suppose, since he filmed it without the proper licensing and may have defrauded his actors... Or according to one story, could himself be the victim of deception regarding the production of the film. Though I suppose that's more a case of him violating hte rights of others, than his own rights being in question...

But fraud, like unlimited corporate funding for politicians, is free speech too, I guess.

Anyway, that aside, the dude's rights aren't in question. No one is going to lock him up over this, the government isn't going to censor him, etc. it's a non-issue. So, why such wild-eyed, chest-thumping support? Of course no one is going to outright say "I agree with and stand by this film 100%!"

Doesn't mean that that's not what is happening, however.

[riderinthestorm]

12. I 110% disagree that ANY DUer is supporting the film, at all, not even one bit.

Furthermore, I don't think there's ANY "wild-eyed, chest thumping support" for it. Not even by ONE poster.

There's more than a bit of support for 1A. You appear to be confusing THAT support with somehow supporting the film.

If you really believe DUers are so grotesquely misguided that they support the film, you are definitely in the wrong place.

But I'm happy to give Mona's articulate piece another well-deserved kick. Her article has some good points and deserves more views imho.

[Scootaloo]

14. And you seem to be confused by what I'm saying.

Allow me to break it down.

1) The filmmaker's 1st amendment rights were never in question. NEVER.
2) Despite this, DU seems to have exploded in a bunch of people giving htemselves congratulatory back-pats over how they support hte filmmaker's 1st amendment rights.
3) Again... those rights are in no danger. He is not facing criminal prosecution for this production. The Us is not banning or censoring the messof a film he made. It's a non-issue.
4) if the 1st amendment rights of this guy aren't in question... and DU'ers clearly know this... why do they persist in thumping their chests about it anyway?

I can think of at least three of said thumpers who are in fact quite persistent islamophobe posters. And even though I've subscribed to it, I've decided to not even glance into I/P this weekend... knowing how much it reeks on a slow day, I can only imagine what it's like now.

If you think there's no support for this film, its maker, and its message on DU, then, well... Kudos to you, you're one hell of an optimist.

[riderinthestorm]

15. If you haven't seen anyone on DU call for this guy to be arrested

or charged with "incitement to riot" or any number of other ridiculous charges, then you are being deliberately obtuse.

THOSE calls (and they are plenty), are what the 1Aers are getting worked up about.

And no, I haven't seen ANY posters who support this film or its message. Please post some links to those assertions.

[Scootaloo]

16. Good for them. They can say whatever they want; 1st amendment, right?

Swings both ways, not just in favor of people who create dehumanizing films The point is, DU posts do not actually translate into an actual threat to someone's first amendment rights. Dyerrr, right? So the frenzy of posts about it is, if nothing else, still pretty damned pointless.

And as I said... no one is going to outright say they support it. Spend enough time dealing with this shit though, and you start to recognize the dog whistles pretty easily.

[riderinthestorm]

17. Actually many DUers posts HAVE directly called for him to be jailed

or thrown into the middle of a ME riot or worse.

Sure its all just conversation but if we're having a discussion, it means that the 1A defenders get to speak up without being called a bigot or worse.

By the way, I'm even interested in seeing evidence of your "dog whistles". Please. Since clearly I'm ignorant of them and I'm always interested in getting educated.

Besides, it means another kick for the excellent OP.

[magical thyme]

18. I'm one of the posters who called for the "ridiculous" charges of "incitement to riot"

and compared this film with deliberately yelling Fire in a crowded theater for the purpose of causing a stampede fully knowing people would potentially be injured or killed. Also of "hate speech." Freedom of speech is not freedom without license and does not mean people can say things with the intent of causing violence, which is what this video producer's stated intent was.

That does not absolve the actual murderers of their violence and murder. It does make the film producer and distributor potentially guilty of hate speech or whatever the actual laws are around freedom of speech.

Freedom comes with responsibility and accountability. That the video financers, producer and promoter violated any sense of responsibility is clear. It is not impossible that they violated laws, and if they did they should be held accountable.

I also was personally attacked in a thread I started about why it was not "just a movie" outside of our culture, and discussed the possibility that other people in parts of the world where they didn't have a long history of free speech, this movie was seen by some people as Government propaganda and represented official US policy.

For that I was excoriated on by a number of (vicious, from my perspective) free speech advocates, and accused of being anti-free speech, along with various and sundry other claims that were based on "reading between the lines" of what I wrote.

A few people actually started writing about the long history of cinema overseas -- as if what was available to the elite and royalty of various societies was equally part of the teachings at the madrassas or the culture of lowest classes.

What I didn't have the opportunity to do, based on my work schedule, was link to 2 articles the next day, both of which supported my position. In one, a former diplomat and colonel talked about the difficulty of traversing cultural differences and how the movie was viewed by some people in the ME -- he essentially said exactly what I had said the day before, in almost identical language.

The other link was to SOS Hillary Clinton's speech, with quotes in which she emphatically stated that this film was not representative of US policy and was not made by or sanctioned by the US government. Again supporting exactly what I had suggested the day before -- that some people did believe the film was made by the US government, or at least sanctioned by it.

[riderinthestorm]

19. I don't support personal attacks against each other.

And I'm sorry about any of that. I saw that thread and didn't participate because MY day that day was too busy. Be that as it may, I DO think that calling for charges is a "ridiculous" IDEA and completely antithetical to our first amendment. I think we can disagree respectfully without always accusing someone of being a bigot. At most some posters are guilty of simplistic thinking. Hardly a crime.

I'm not an absolutist. Please know I hear and understand your concerns. The movie is abhorrent. Scootaloo didn't appear to believe that ANY DUers had called for jailing the moviemakers.

[magical thyme]

20. I understand and agree with you too. Although we can always call for charges.

Doesn't mean we'll get our way, though

It looks as though our video-maker may be headed back to jail over this film and limits on his specific free speech rights!

Turns out he was on probation as part of a massive bank fraud conviction, and his probation included a 5 year ban on use of computers, the internet and web without permission of his probation officer!

No time to find the link as I'm on my way outta here!

[treestar]

13. Good point, the claim to be a victim of restriction on speech comes up too fast

as no one ever claims that it means say anything anytime that's offensive to anyone. The First Amendment is about the government not having the power to prosecute anyone for what they say. That's different from saying that speaking up purposely to offend people is impolite to say the least. Or stupid as you know you can rile up certain people beyond reason, and you do it on purpose to "prove" they are irrational.

[malaise]

2. Good post