Pam Geller, Geert Wilders, and the caricature as an act of hate and bullying
–––
Within two of the most prominent monotheistic religions in the world, Judaism and Islam, tradition dictates it blasphemous and highly insulting for any person to physically depict their G*d in Judaism, and the Prophet Muhammad in Islam, even positively or respectfully. So why then did the so-called American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and its leader, anti-Islam activist Pam Geller, organize their “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, a small suburb near Dallas? Geller offered a $10,000 prize to be awarded for the “best” cartoon caricature of Muhammad.
According to Geller, as well as the invited keynote speaker, far-right politician Geert Wilders, head of the Dutch Freedom Party, the event was called as an exercise in free speech. Evidently, Geller chose the site in reaction to a pro-Islam gathering, “Stand with the Prophet” held there last January. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which follows extremist hate group, defines AFDI as an extremist right-wing organization.
Expecting trouble and the possibility of violence, Geller expended an estimated $10,000 to the Garland, Texas police force to cover security costs for the two-hour event, and violence is, indeed, what they got. Two men identified as Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, using automatic weapons, opened fire on a security officer stationed outside the contest building. The officer, using only his service pistol, was able to bring down the shooters, possibly saving many other lives. The two men died of their wounds.
The shooters actions cannot be condoned, for violence in the face of hate only brings about more hate, thus creating an unending cycle. I am at a complete loss, though, to understand how this event could be justified as free speech.
“Muhammad fought and terrorized people with the swords. Today, here in Garland, we fight Muhammad and his followers with the pen. And the pen, the drawings, will prove mightier than the sword,”
said Wilders during his address to the estimated 200 attendees. Geller continued the justification in an interview with CNN:
“It’s dangerous because increasingly, we’re abridging our freedoms so as not to offend savages.”
To caricature the Prophet Muhammad in reflection of the perverse actions of some extremists who use their distorted interpretations of Islam as their battle cry is equivalent to depicting Jesus in response to the abhorrent acts of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVey or the sorted activities of white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Though these so-called “cartoons” may stand within the protected categories under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and though I am not calling for them to be outlawed, I see these caricatures as acts of hate and bullying for the goal of insulting and inciting.
I ask then, who are the “savages”?
Photo: David Karp/AP
I’m not surprised that this commentary has provoked such a heated debate. There’s one great quality little seen in this debate about ‘free speech’ and that is politeness. And simple common sense. I greatly honor the courageous men and women in the Muslim world who work for greater freedom of speech and for change. They are taking serious risks, and some are paying with their lives. Salaman Rushdie wrote ‘The Satanic Verses’, provoking a violent response in the Muslim world, and leading to his own life being transformed: he has to live under police protection to this day, has been… Read more »
I think some of you may be confusing and conflating “free speech” with “accepted” or even “tolerated speech.” For me, while I understand what AFDI is doing has been classified under the category of “free speech,” that does not mean that I have to tolerate it by not speaking out. I understand that we cannot take AFDI to a court of law to order a cease and desist order against their tactics, nor would I want to do so. However, I have the right, as well, to take this case to the court of public opinion to call it out… Read more »
I think some of you may be confusing and conflating “free speech” with “accepted” or even “tolerated speech.” That is because “some” of us do not attempt to distinguish among “free speech” or “accepted speech” or “tolerated speech” because the latter two sound like disingenuous categories you made up on the cuff so that you can lay the groundwork for ideologically disqualifying certain speech from the category of “free speech.” We considered “free speech” to mean whatever speech is permitted and protected under the First Amendment, no matter what its content or whether we supported or despised it. I understand… Read more »
Cartoons of Free Speech or Hate? Redux
https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/cartoons-of-free-speech-or-hate-redux-wcz/
For those of you who are making the analogy with rape, your comparison with “blaming the victims” does not hold with my article. AFDI, as well as the minister in Florida last year who burned the Koran, do so for the purpose of inflaming, inciting, demeaning, and provoking. In so doing, they place U.S. citizens and members of our military in jeopardy of violence throughout the world. One cannot dump barrels of blood in the sea without expecting to attract sharks.
AFDI, as well as the minister in Florida last year who burned the Koran, do so for the purpose of inflaming, inciting, demeaning, and provoking. So if a feminist posts an essay or youtube video in which she profanely denounces and insults MRA’s and manosphere participants for being sexist and misogynist, and she then receives violent threats, can we say that she sort of “had it coming” because she had a provocative and inflammatory intent? If an abusive husband warns his wife that he will assault her if she ever insults or berates him, and she does so anyway despite… Read more »
For those of you who are making the analogy with rape, your comparison with “blaming the victims” does not hold with my article. AFDI, as well as the minister in Florida last year who burned the Koran, do so for the purpose of inflaming, inciting, demeaning, and provoking. In so doing, they place U.S. citizens and members of our military in jeopardy of violence throughout the world. One cannot dump barrels of blood in the sea without expecting to attract sharks. The analogy most certainly holds – you’ve just done the exact same “they were asking for it” explaining-away so… Read more »
“The shooters actions cannot be condoned, for violence in the face of hate only brings about more hate, thus creating an unending cycle,”
No, most respectable progressives would not openly “condone” the shooters’ actions. Though I suspect that if the shooters’ actions chasten and intimidate more people from saying unfavorable things about Islam, then some progressives are quietly thanking them for helping achieve those ends, even while publicly disavowing the means.
“AFDI, as well as the minister in Florida last year who burned the Koran, do so for the purpose of inflaming, inciting, demeaning, and provoking”
So a bunch of atheists gather to burn a ton of Bibles and a group of Christians open fire on them- who’s to blame there?
Does that analogy work better for you Warren? Because I’m betting you wouldn’t be willing to grant the same leniency to a group of white christian terrorists as you apparently are willing to a group of muslim terrorists.
Right. The gun toters looking to murder someone over a drawing are the “bullied”
In agreement with the well positioned snark of the commentariat –
I don’t like the use of the meme of “asking for it”, as a counter to the argument.
It’s an overused and hyped reflex response –
There is nothing wrong with noting that freedom may carry unwanted costs. Understanding this friction of values and proceeding anyway, with eyes wide open, is the stuff of human courage.
I fully agree. However, we see something wrong with those who hypocritically and selectively invoke those “unwanted costs” as a pretext for demanding that people should never exercise certain freedoms.
Pretty sure the guys with the intent to kill.
Are you saying the people in Garland were “asking for it”?
A couple questions for the author.
1: Were you this upset at the “piss christ” art exhibit? If not, why?
2. According to the SPLC is there such a thing as an extremist left wing organization, and if not why should I trust anything they have to say?
3. Would you say the people in Garland were “asking for it”?
https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/i-believe-in-free-speech-but/
Relevant.
I am at a complete loss, though, to understand how this event could be justified as free speech.Though these so-called “cartoons” may stand within the protected categories under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and though I am not calling for them to be outlawed, I see these caricatures as acts of hate and bullying for the goal of insulting and inciting. You insist that you are “not calling for them to be outlawed,” yet you keep insisting that these cartoons and utterances do not actually qualify as “free speech” and that are just some detestable thing that has… Read more »
I think Dr. Blumenfeld was attempting to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart when he famously said,
“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“free speech”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the cartoon pictures involved in this case are not that.”
I think Justice Stewart said that. Damn wikipedia…
Really? Well, that’s a relief. I thought he was aping Herbert Marcuse.
He’s a bright guy. Simultaneously aping and paraphrasing are not beyond his powers. Don’ t ask him to split an atom or an infinitive though.
There has been a report of a fatwa issued against Geller. Fortunately no one has of yet called her a slut so we have that going for us.
Interesting that you bring up the term “victim blaming.” I was thinking about this issue in comparison to rape, how inciting violence using words and pictures is not unlike inciting rape by wearing revealing clothes and getting drunk at wild parties. In either case, it’s not the victim’s fault that such a thing happens. Would we be wrong in saying they were “asking for it?” Is there a fundamental difference between the two things? Are we hypocritical if we victim blame in one situation but not the other?
Yes, there IS victim blaming going on here: AFDI blames the victims of marginalization and bullying (Muslims) for the bad deeds of a relatively few among its ranks.
The shooters are the savages, obviously. Trying to imply that people making drawings are savage in the face of that is utterly despicable.
Whatever else I may disagree with them on (most things, I suspect) I honestly have more respect for AFDI now than I do for those making pathetic false equivalences that are nothing more than victim-blaming.