What Ambassador Stevens Would Have Wanted
The previous entry, “Trapped in Blasphemy,” tried to go beyond the debate about freedom of speech; not because it is not a debate worth having, but rather because it is a debate that is closed and does not lead us anywhere. It is closed because we have already said everything: We said it with Rushdie, we repeated it with the Danish caricatures (see my article from then, “To Die Laughing”), with the assassination of Van Gogh — and we repeat it on every occasion.
On this topic I recommend an article by Aryeh Neier, president of the Open Society Institute and founder of Human Rights Watch, “Freedom, Blasphemy and Violence.” In it he explains the difference between, on the one hand, hate speech — an offense punishable in the majority of Western countries as it incites discrimination and violence against communities or individuals — and, on the other, blasphemy, which these days is almost the inverse — with those who receive the message, not those who broadcast it, inciting the rebellion, protest or violence. The blasphemy could be morally condemnable but not legally punishable, as is the case here.
But this debate does not take us anywhere. Why? Because those who should be on the other side are not there. The other side’s representative has another understanding of freedom of speech, the role of religion, the West and, especially, the power of the United States government. From that side, as we have seen over the past few days, the furthest some leaders have gone, like the president of Egypt himself, Morsi, is to lament the loss of human lives and to preserve the security of United States diplomats and their headquarters. Of course! But he has also described the video as “a crime against humanity that leaves us stunned.”*
Therefore, Hillary Clinton is right in saying that while she dislikes the video and understands that it could be offensive to many people, she cannot do anything in this respect, first because her government is not the author and second because this video does not constitute a crime in her country. But as this crisis has shown, to be right is very important, but sometimes it is irrelevant in practice.
I recommend an article by the Canadian Michael Ignatieff, an icon of liberal thought: “The Lessons of Rushdie’s Fatwa Years.” He reflects on how these incidents make coexistence harder and harder between Western and Muslim countries and, worse still, within our own societies, where the string of coexistence and multiculturalism is unbearably tense. On one side it leads secular countries to reaffirm the incompatibility of Islam with democracy and threatens multiculturalism with pressure (prohibition of veils etc.). On the other side it reinforces the feelings within Muslim communities that their beliefs are not respected and that when it comes to their dignity there is no kind of limit to freedom of speech.
This is also what worries Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Foundation headquarters in Lebanon, which reflects on the impact that these incidents will have on the American presidential campaign. He focuses especially on the possibility that they will weaken Obama and make way for a President Romney, who would be under a lot of pressure to change the direction set by Obama and to slam the door that Obama has left open to the emerging governments of the Arab Spring (“U.S.-Arab Relations will be Defined by Reaction to Attack”).
I conclude with an article by Jason Pack in Foreign Policy (“Honoring Chris Stevens”) that has a very clear message. The best way to honor Stevens, a brilliant diplomat who spoke Arabic since serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in his youth in Morocco, is to step up efforts to build a democratic Libya. In spite of the assault on the consulate, the image of the United States in Libya is excellent. Both countries are working side by side, and, to top it off, a Libyan with an American passport was chosen on Sept. 12 as a candidate for prime minister — this after Islamists failed to win the first free elections in Libya’s history on July 7. Let’s debate, yes, but let’s act too.
* Editor’s Note: This quote cannot be verified.
On this topic I recommend an article by Aryeh Neier, president of the Open Society Institute and founder of Human Rights Watch, “Freedom, Blasphemy and Violence.” In it he explains the difference between, on the one hand, hate speech — an offense punishable in the majority of Western countries as it incites discrimination and violence against communities or individuals — and, on the other, blasphemy, which these days is almost the inverse — with those who receive the message, not those who broadcast it, inciting the rebellion, protest or violence. The blasphemy could be morally condemnable but not legally punishable, as is the case here.
But this debate does not take us anywhere. Why? Because those who should be on the other side are not there. The other side’s representative has another understanding of freedom of speech, the role of religion, the West and, especially, the power of the United States government. From that side, as we have seen over the past few days, the furthest some leaders have gone, like the president of Egypt himself, Morsi, is to lament the loss of human lives and to preserve the security of United States diplomats and their headquarters. Of course! But he has also described the video as “a crime against humanity that leaves us stunned.”*
Therefore, Hillary Clinton is right in saying that while she dislikes the video and understands that it could be offensive to many people, she cannot do anything in this respect, first because her government is not the author and second because this video does not constitute a crime in her country. But as this crisis has shown, to be right is very important, but sometimes it is irrelevant in practice.
I recommend an article by the Canadian Michael Ignatieff, an icon of liberal thought: “The Lessons of Rushdie’s Fatwa Years.” He reflects on how these incidents make coexistence harder and harder between Western and Muslim countries and, worse still, within our own societies, where the string of coexistence and multiculturalism is unbearably tense. On one side it leads secular countries to reaffirm the incompatibility of Islam with democracy and threatens multiculturalism with pressure (prohibition of veils etc.). On the other side it reinforces the feelings within Muslim communities that their beliefs are not respected and that when it comes to their dignity there is no kind of limit to freedom of speech.
This is also what worries Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Foundation headquarters in Lebanon, which reflects on the impact that these incidents will have on the American presidential campaign. He focuses especially on the possibility that they will weaken Obama and make way for a President Romney, who would be under a lot of pressure to change the direction set by Obama and to slam the door that Obama has left open to the emerging governments of the Arab Spring (“U.S.-Arab Relations will be Defined by Reaction to Attack”).
I conclude with an article by Jason Pack in Foreign Policy (“Honoring Chris Stevens”) that has a very clear message. The best way to honor Stevens, a brilliant diplomat who spoke Arabic since serving as a Peace Corps volunteer in his youth in Morocco, is to step up efforts to build a democratic Libya. In spite of the assault on the consulate, the image of the United States in Libya is excellent. Both countries are working side by side, and, to top it off, a Libyan with an American passport was chosen on Sept. 12 as a candidate for prime minister — this after Islamists failed to win the first free elections in Libya’s history on July 7. Let’s debate, yes, but let’s act too.
* Editor’s Note: This quote cannot be verified.
Previous article![]( "Michelle, More in Love Than Ever, to Get Obama Reelected")
