Johnson case Therefore, according to the US more liberal perspective, the Innocence of Muslims clips should be protected, continuing to be available on the web, since they do perfectly represent freedom of expression, of religion, and of speech. In Post, Following this way of reasoning, both the Danish cartoons and the Innocence of Muslims clips are an integrant part of the public discourse, and as such should be safeguarded.
In the First Amendment context, the harm principle is the precept that people are free to say what they want as long as they do not voluntarily offend others; this right does indeed arise from the general concern for the dignity of the individual. For Muslim believers, the Innocence of Muslims case like the Danish cartoons controversy is outrageous; they feel deeply offended by the movie clips, and they reacted by using violence — also encouraged by religious leaders who hold some political power — especially in the Middle East.
International organizations have stressed the fact that, after the release of the movie trailer and clips, like after the Danish cartoons controversy, a new wave of racial discrimination — especially linked to Islamophobia — hit both the Middle East and the western world. Muslims claim that western people should be more respectful towards multiculturalism and religious diversity, and that ridiculing the Prophet Mohammed can be considered blasphemy religious offense.
Over the past centuries especially in Britain , blasphemy was considered as a common law crime; consequently, public authorities were interested in suppressing blasphemy insofar as they had an interest in protecting the respect properly due to God. It is relevant to point out that Pakistan, for example, prescribes the death penalty for anyone who does — more or less directly — offend the name of Mohammed. For this reason, a Pakistani minister has even offered a bounty for the death of Nakoula.
The first and weaker argument concerns the idea of religious harm or offence directly aimed at an individual; on the other hand, the second argument stresses the fact that cruel, blasphemous acts may harm no one but still offend thousands of believers like in the Innocence of Muslims case. The third argument underlines that besides the cruelty or gravity of a blasphemous act per se, the act itself is usually considered as an attack on the Sacred, a violation of religious principles.
Austria case of — dramatically similar to the Innocence of Muslim issue. The case concerned the Austrian state seizing a film produced by the Otto Preminger Institute that offended the religious feelings of Catholics the major religious community of Tyrol, a region of Austria.
The applicant claimed that his freedom of speech right granted by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights was violated by Austria. This means that fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, can be violated in order to protect religious rights and freedoms of others. In other words, the state has the positive obligation to ensure to religious believers that their religious rights, identity, and values are fully respected.
The fact that the Court protected the religious rights of a specific group or community in this case, Catholics can be interpreted as a form of discrimination, an aspect that links blasphemy law to hate speech law.
The movie is disgusting, offensive, and clearly intended for no other reason than to anger people, and it is unfortunate that there were some out there who took the bait.
While in Libya this past summer, I had the opportunity to meet Ambassador Stevens on a couple of occasions and the man was nothing but kind, warm and welcoming. He seemed genuinely excited to be working in Libya at such a historic moment, and eager to help the nation transition into a democracy.
To sum up, the Innocence of Muslim question has not only sparked international debates, but also caused several casualties, in the Middle East and abroad. The issue is particularly problematic because it exacerbates the tension between freedom of expression and religious rights.
Indeed, when coldly analyzing the movie clips, forgetting for a moment our religious creed, whatever it is and if there is one , it is impossible not to notice that they were not directly aimed at fostering discrimination, violence, or oppression. They may exacerbate stereotypes and exaggerations, but that is not the same as hate speech. Bibliography Abdurrahman, S. September 12, On the Media [Blog]. Abu-Nimer, M. Advanced embedding details, examples, and help!
Publication date Topics movie , muhammad , muhammad movie , innocence of muslim , the movie of innocence of muslim , banned movies , banned movies list , mohammad , religion based movie. Reviewer: Mr. It's simply the well-known 13 minute trailer repeated over and over. This movie insult our greatest person and beloved prophet Muhammad p.
H and dont open YouTube or google for three days or more because YouTube didn't banned the movie even after requesting to banned the movie. Prophet Mohammed was a model of being a human being a true servant of God. All of the Arab people knew his pedigree and all the people who live with him knew how much he is a true human, so they followed his steps.
The video illustrates the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light. But most importantly, it portrays Prophet Muhammad as a fool, womanizer and killer.
Debate over the video can be viewed in different perspectives. The film has sparked a delicate debate about how far that right could be extended. On requests by the authorities, You Tube since then has blocked access to this video in several countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco and others which also including Malaysia and its neighbouring countries, Indonesia and Singapore.
Just few days ago, the French Magazine Charlie Hebdo published several caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad including portraying the Prophet naked in cartoons, which again agitate the already tense atmosphere in the Muslim world. In the past, there have been many other controversial publications and artworks that have caused uproar among the Muslims except that this time, the sphere of protests has been pretty much explosive.
The film was intended to feature the abuse of Muslim women; however it became dubious due to several images in the film. Shortly two months after the broadcast, van Gogh was murdered by a young man, Mohammed Bouyeri on an Amsterdam street.
The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington The theory of the Clash of Civilizations was first proposed by the influential political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in in Foreign Affairs, just shortly after the end of the Cold War might be able to serve as one of the reasons behind of what is happening now. He emphasized that people are being divided along cultural lines and there is no universal civilization but there are cultural blocks where each of it has its own distinct set of values.
0コメント