The anti-Islamic bait and freedom of expression

The anti-Islam film, Innocence of Muslims, was brought from obscurity by the Egyptian television, al-Nas, and transformed by interested parties into a means to mobilize Muslims across the world against the West, and particularly the United States. The controversy generated by the film and the ensuing protests enabled French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, to free-ride off events and gain publicity and increase sales by printing caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. Defenders of the publication and film argue that they are an expression of freedom of speech, which is a vital component of democracy. They also argue that Muslims need to be less sensitive and should stop playing the victim card. In the same vein, it can also be argued that the broadcasting of the film on Egyptian television was an expression of freedom of speech despite the resulting violence.

---

At first glance, one may agree and accept that the film and caricatures come under freedom of expression, are only a bit of humour and that Muslims are over sensitive. On other hand, one can also accept that the film and caricatures are viewed as offensive by some Muslims necessitating a response which some commentators claim has been disproportionate. However, this does not address the motivations of the film maker, al-Nas and Charlie Hebdo. To address this issue we have to consider the geopolitical and local socio-political landscape that the aforementioned protagonists operate within. In doing so, we realise that the reasons for making the film, its broadcasting and the publication of the caricatures are governed by concerns other than freedom of expression. Equally, the protests are also conditioned by issues other than those raised by the film and caricatures.

The protesters in the Arab world, via the Arab Spring, are about venting their anger over their past, and struggling over the present and the possible future. The anger over the past is due to the experience of human rights abuses at the hands of former leaders that were supported by Western powers so that they could maintain their geopolitical interests. The struggle over the present situation is to prevent Western powers from remaking the past with a different cast through various international institutions and security apparatus. The struggle over the possible future is to remind their present leaders and outsiders that they are unwilling to return to the past life of precariousness. In the Western world, Muslims are protesting over two issues that are often intertwined. Firstly, they do not want their brethren to have a precarious future controlled by the West. Secondly is the rampant Islamaphobia that they experience, overtly and covertly, through disclaimers such as security concerns, immigration, and freedom of expression. 

On the other hand, the anti-Islam film maker and al-Nas are inspired by an atmosphere that endorses Islamaphobia, hate for the West and the dehumanization of the ‘other’. Their aim is to evoke responses which can then be used as validation of how the ‘other’ must be understood for domestic and regional consumption. The publishers of the caricatures are also inspired by the same ideas but, but like al-Nas, they are interested in gaining free advertising, and increased viewers and readership on the back of the anti-Islam film.

If the film, its broadcasting and the caricatures have proved anything, it is that freedom of expression can be used to create conditions that encourage hate of the other, and which can lead to a spiral of mindless violence.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.