Fitna, the failure
This past week saw the release of Geert Wilders' "Fitna". I'd like to quickly say this post is not endorsing that film, the author of it, or any specific religion. I hope, instead, to point out what the film has actually accomplished, and look at the issues surrounding it. I'd also like to point out that I fully support all basic human rights, including those of Freedom of Speech and Religion. I won't be giving a link to the video as I don't support it. In addition, those viewing it might be disturbed by a few scenes (beheadings, hangings, close range gun shots) and I don't want my site affiliated with any of that. Read below the cut to see my analysis.
Background
The controversy starts (ok, the immediate controversy in this issue) when the Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad about 2 and a half years ago. They were published when an artist writing about the life of Muhammad and the Qu'ran couldn't find an artist to draw the cover of his book (he would eventually find one who worked anonymously). I'll let the cultural editor for the newspaper explain why they were published in his own words (quote taken from wikipedia as the original article has disappeared from the paper's website):
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]
The fallout of article was three Dutch embassies being torched, over 100 deaths during riots in Middle Eastern Countries, and many terrorist leaders calling for his death. More riots broke out a few months ago when the cartoons were republished to show what the controversy was. So the Dutch already have a stigma of "Islamaphobia" hanging over their heads.
Geert Wilders/PVV
Geert is the author of this film, and a politician in the Dutch House of Representatives, where he is the leader of the Party for Freedom party. Contrary to the name of the party, this political party doesn't stand for individual freedoms, they stand for freedom from government. Unfortunately that doesn't just mean freedom from such things as socialized health care, they also want to abolish such things as minimum wage.
Of course at the same time of not wanting the government to be involved in individual's lives, they want crackdowns on immigration. Specifically they want to slow down immigration from Middle Eastern Countries. As for Middle Easterners that come to the Netherlands, the PVV wants them to realize that Judeo-Christian culture is predominant, and that the immigrants should adapt. And this from a party with "Freedom" in its name.
Geert himself, is interesting in that he calls himself a "defender of free speech" and "critic of Islam" in almost the same breath. Sure, being a critic fits in nicely with free speech, but his "critique" includes banning the Qu'ran. How can any politician who wants freedom of speech for his own writings take away the freedom of religion for 5.5% of his country's population?
Fitna, the Movie
And so it was that Fitna was born, brainchild of Geert. He hoped (initial rumors indicated) to show the world what was wrong with Islam. No one knew exactly how that would happen (though as the release date got closer, it was previewed by people who leaked the content), and I for one was quite interested. I was hoping for some good research into Shari'a Law and how it was being applied in Europe, as well as studies about extremism and its causes, to name two ideas for good movies.
The movie was supposed to launch around the 22nd/23rd, but Network Solutions (web host for fitnathemovie.com) took the site down hours before Geert was able to post the video. What remained was a small note saying they were investigating the content of the site to make sure it fit into their Acceptable Use Policy. The applicable section (in the list of prohibited uses) is as follows, emphasis mine:
Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, hate propaganda, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.
Now, I'm not a lawyer for Network Solutions, nor have I talked to one, but the parts I highlighted are the reasons I assume they're looking into the content. I'm sure they got complaints from Muslims that the site was hosting offensive material, more likely to be 'hate propaganda' than 'harassment'. (The movie also contains copyright violations, see below). Many sites get complaints, and I was quite upset at the time to see Network Solutions cave (hey, if I was posting offensive content, I wouldn't have chosen a US host when ThePirateBay is doing so well overseas) to this pressure thinking that they should take a stand for Freedom of Speech.
That is, until I finally saw the video. LiveLeak decided to have a backbone (Internet pun not intended) and host the film, with a note on the front page that they weren't endorsing the content, merely Freedom of Speech. I thought this was a good avenue to go down, especially with a mandatory click through agreeing you want to see offensive materials. Anyone who wanted the see what Geert had to say could, and those that might be offended couldn't accidentally stumble across it. (LiveLeak has since taken the movie down after receiving death threats. They apologized for not standing up for Freedom of Speech, but cite their employees well-being as coming first. I wholeheartedly agree).
Unfortunately what Geert had to say was, well, not much. It was somehow researched at a level below that of even a Michael Moore film, and was just as sensationalist, if not more so. The first 7 minutes is publicly available news footage (aka, no new insight) of various terrorist related activities, juxtaposed with 5 verses from the Qu'ran. Everything from Madrid, to September 11, 2001 in slow motion, to a video I originally mistook to be the Pearl beheading, instead it is Eugene Armstrong, another American in Iraq at the time. An extensive breakdown of the film's "plot" can be found here.
My reaction to this first section was two-fold. First off it, unfortunately, drudged up memories and feelings from those attacks which is clearly what it was designed to do. Second, it made me wonder just how dumb the supporters of this movie have to be to base this entire segment on 5 verses. No context is given for any of them, nor actual analysis other than how extremist Muslims have acted. I won't say that these verses are not used to justify terrorism, what I will say is that most Muslims do not view it as a call to terrorism. But to pull five verses, show these atrocities and leave the unspoken link that all Muslims will behave this way is just uncalled for. Its not journalism, and its not activism, its pure stupidity.
The next section is designed to show the 'threat' of Islam, with quotes of Islam taking over the world. Unfortunately for Geert, these quotes come from places we'd expect them, such as Iran's President and well-known anti-Semites. If he had clips of "domestic terror" defendants this section might have a lot more force.
Finally he had a section on Islam and the Netherlands. This was the "best researched" section, in that he pulled from a lot more news sources for his headlines. He attempts to show that if Shari'a Law is introduced into Europe, Gays and Women will lose a lot of rights, honor killings will start and basically all hell will break loose. He makes some decent points here, with the killer of Theo Van Gogh (another guy who made an anti-Islamic film, though his was a lot better) saying he'd kill him again if he could, and mentioning Ayaan Hrisi Ali. Unfortunately I can't speak for the situation of Islam in the Netherlands, so i have no idea if he's embellishing it, or finally presenting an accurate picture.
The closing seconds show a hand on a Qu'ran, then fade to black as you hear a ripping sound. This is controversial as (Muslim's believe) you shouldn't defile the Qu'ran by ripping pages out. Then a message floats up saying that it was actually a phone book, and that it was up to Muslims to rip out the hateful parts of the Qu'ran. This is the one part of the movie I agree with, and I'm not even in completel agreement here. It is on Muslims to get extremism under control, whether that be through the reforms Christianity did (remember, Islam is between the ages of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition for Christian history) or through more rigorous policing of their imams and religions leaders I don't know. What I disagree with is that they must rewrite the Qu'ran to do so. To rewrite it would be to deny that the Qu'ran (as it is now) is the word of Allah, and introduce more "Satanic Verses". Instead, they should look at other meanings of jihad, meaning "To strive for", and listen to the moderates that have fled the Middle East.
Fallout
I actually had to stumble across a link to the movie the night it was released, because there was relatively no fallout. There was more news on Network Solutions taking down his other site than there was about Fitna coming out. I'll always remember a headline I saw the next day: "Dozens protest in Pakistan over Movie." Yes, you read that right, dozens, not hundreds, not thousands, dozens. And not a single death. In other words, Geert has failed to do what I think his goal was, incite more violence to convince the Netherlands Islam needs to be dealt with. If mobs had crowded the street, or if he'd been killed, his party could further its agenda and work towards banning the Qu'ran, but nothing happened. Muslims went to their prayers on Friday peacefully, realizing that to do anything violent would be playing into Geert's hands. Of course, there has been more protests since then in the Middle East and the Netherlands, and the Dutch Envoy in Iran has been summoned to speak for what happened, but even before the movie was release the Dutch government was smart and condemned the movie. While they weren't going to censor Free Speech, they were going to make sure that Muslims understand this is the work of one man, not a country, and not a nationality. Oh, if only Geert understood the same for extremists, that they don't speak for their religion or nationality as a whole.
As for additional fallout from the movie, Geert is being sued by Kurt Westergaard, the author of the cartoon depicting Muhammad in a turban with a bomb, for using the cartoon without his permission, a violation of copyright. He also might be sued by Salah Edin, an Arab rapper who Geert mistook for the killer of Van Gogh, Muhammad Bouyeri.
And, ironically, Omar Bakri, an Islamic extremist, actually liked the film, saying that if you removed the drawin of Muhammad with a bomb, it could be used as an Al-Qaida recruitment video. Geert's desire to show the horror of Islam might actually be used to recruit for Jihad, a fact which further supports my claim that he only released it to incite more attacks.
Conclusion
In the end, I support Geert's right to Free Speech. I applaud him for the bravery to stand up for what he believes in, even in the face of death threats, and I wish him well. However I think this movie is nothing more than sensationalist drivel, aimed at provoking more violence in the same way that Ann Coulter and Michael Moore throw barbs back and forth in our country. The only difference is that Moore targeted McDonald's and Geert singled out a religion with at least 1.1 billion followers (of which on 20% are in 'Arab' countries where most of the extremism is found). To release such a video that is entirely negative and clearly designed to provoke violence is reckless and wrong.
