Can Comedy Overcome Prejudice and Fanaticism?

The idea of using comedy to make light-hearted entertainment of sensitive issues is not new. Perhaps some would argue that has always been the point of comedy to make fun of the big issues that divide us. Nevertheless, we will soon find out whether a sense of humor and a situational comedy can overcome the prejudices and fanaticism that pervade our communities.

Omar Marzouk, a Danish comedian and a Muslim has put together a sitcom called "The Terror Cell" with a disparate group of characters being the Cell. Marzouk was born and raised in Copenhagen.

The Cell includes Osama, a businessman who finds that terror sells all manner of things such as t-shirts, caps, and pens. This reminds me of a t-shirt that I still see every now and then in Bali and further afield that came out soon after the first Bali Bombings of 12 October 2008, "Fuck Terrorists". No apologies for the language as it expresses a sentiment that many continue to feel and to use "f*&k" to me seems to undermine the intensity of feeling and that sentiment.

The second of the cell is Abdul, a convert whose main goal is to kill as many people as he can with the biggest bombs he can make.

Finally, there is Ali, a Pakistani who entered a competition where the winner was awarded the chance of wreaking revenge on the masses for the publication of the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark.

Just the thought of such a show making it onto Danish TV is intriguing. Even more so considering the violence that occurred in the aftermath of the Muhammad cartoons being published in Denmark and the violence that was related to Geert Wilders and his film, Fitna.

In a Kenny of South Park fame kind of a way the principle characters die and then reappear in the next episode. Every episode ends with the terrorists blowing themselves and their apartment up. They make the journey to heaven and then Allah sends them back to the real world so that they can learn from their mistakes and do it better the next time around.

The Terror Cell, according to Marzouk, has some similarities with "The Young Ones". Marzouk liked The Young Ones because it was crazy in that they were always blowing each other up. It would seem that Marzouk and I enjoy something similar in our choice of comedy. I really enjoyed The Young Ones when I was younger, I would probably still enjoy it now [mental note to myself -- search the Internet for some Young Ones episodes -- if anyone has links please share], so I am looking forward to getting to watch The Terror Cell.

Marzouk recognizes that the subject matter of his sitcom is probably not going to be essentially viewing for some and in anticipation of the obligatory death threats has placed a poll on his website which allows people to choose one of eight different methods of having him killed. To date beheading is head and shoulders above the others (pun intended).

Minister of Communication and Information, Fitna, and Circulars

A rather innocuous looking letter from the Minister of Communications and Information regarding the blocking of sites and blogs that host and show the film produced by Geert Wilders, Fitna, is a letter that has serious consequences for those of us that use the Internet as a means of communication.

The letter itself is based on Article 21 of the Telecommunications Law (No. 36 of 1999) which prohibits the broadcasting of material that impacts negatively on relations between religions and harmony (in the public order sense). Article 21 permits the government to suspend telecommunication providers activities if they broadcast, or continue broadcasting, after being informed that certain material is objectionable.

The Telecommunications Law itself does not explicitly state how the government is to do this and whether a Circular is within the scope of the provision. There is probably a sustainable argument that Circulars in the legislation sense are not binding or would require other legislative instruments to give full force and effect to the intent of the Circular. The cynics among us might just view this as appeasement of those clamouring for Fitna to be banned and for Wilders to be punished for his alleged blasphemy.

This letter was not issued based on any of the provisions of the recently passed Information and Electronic Transactions Bill.

It is beyond the scope of this post to debate the merits or lack thereof of Fitna. However, the Minister of Communication and Information has established a precedent of how it intends to respond to objectionable material, and that is to restrict it as far as possible.

Unfortunately, it seems that some Internet providers and network access points have decided to completely block access to certain sites. Some has gone as far as to completely block access to You Tube, My Space, Meta Café, Rapidshare, and other sites in order to comply with the Minister’s letter. This seems a little extreme as by completely blocking access to a site means that ‘all” the material is prohibited from entering Indonesia and this is clearly not the intent of the original instruction from the Minister.

It seems that businesses have decided that there is less impact on their bottom lines by blocking the whole rather than putting in place a filter that potentially could slow down their system functions and capabilities.

The other consideration is that those with a real interest in the film have already downloaded it and could conceivably host it locally or attach it to a mass email in order to distribute it. The letter and response from a number of telecommunications companies highlights the difficulties that the government and providers will encounter in selective blocking of sites and material.

For subscribers of providers that have blocked access completely to certain sites it is unclear what recourse they might be able to follow in order to restore partial access to material that has no relationship to the banned film.

This may not be enough to stir serious debate on future censorship of the Internet in Indonesia but it is certainly food for thought for those businesses that conduct or rely heavily on the Internet in the performance of their respective businesses.

The letter was issued on 2 April 2008.

As a postscript to this issue.

The government has already backed down with regards to the generalized blocking of sites. However, it would seem that some providers are still trying to work out ways in which to block material. I know from personal experience that Telkom speedy has been tinkering with its services as I am periodically blacked out from blogspot.com. However, the last few days the tinkering has resulted in not much more than overall bad service as Friday and Saturday have seen sporadic connectability!

Google Maps Street View

Got any privacy concerns? Well, if you do then you will need to get 'em sorted out as Google is coming to get ya through its Google Maps "Street View" service! Google does not see any privacy concerns here as the vehicles that take these happy snappies are very easily identified in the sense that they are decked out in the Google colours with a roof mounted camera!

Besides, and as Google claims, any content that people find invades their privacy or is inappropriate they can ask that Google take it down or remove it from the site. However, as fair as this might sound on face value, even an inexperienced Internet user will be able to tell you that once the image is uploaded the damage is already done! Indonesians should be acutely aware of this with the latest attempts of the Indonesian government to prevent the spread of Geert Wilders film into Indonesia.

Yet, there are other issues aside from the fact that Google is hiding behind the claim that it is only filming in public places and the very definition of a public place is that it is sans privacy. The question is where does the public domain start and the private domain end.

Can Google photograph someone in their car in their driveway or the parking lot of a shopping centre...perhaps in common and civil law jurisdictions lawyers with expertise in trespass are about to get plenty of work or so it would seem? What about where people who need to be protected from having their identities released, particularly a whistle blower or someone else in a witness protection program. An extreme and perhaps one of those rare to never happenings but even with the odds against it there is still that slim chance...then what? Google takes the image down and apologizes? Damage done! Google is being sued already for alleged invasions of privacy through the use of this service -- let's see how that plays out and then perhaps more definitive statements might be made on the privacy concerns.

In any event the rapid spread of mobile phone technology with camera and video capabilities should have educated people that they will need to be more vigilant with their conduct in both public and private places. This technology means that there is a budding Scorsese in all of us just waiting for that 15 minutes of grainy 3gp fame!

Refuting Wilders

It seems that when the Suras that have been selected by Wilders to accompany the images of his film are put into context by considering the Suras before and after the selected Suras then a very different picture emerges.

Critical debate is always a better option than violence that only serves to perpetuate stereotypes!

Check out this video that refutes the Wilders film...

I encourage you to watch it, you might just learn something, I did!

Site Blocking & Fitna

Fitna is the flavour of the month it seems and blog worthy developments just keep on coming...

MUI, the Indonesian Council of Ulemas, has decided to call for a boycott of Dutch goods in protest of the film. Interestingly, the MUI has not issued a Fatwa about this but rather has decided to make its views known through statements to the press. Two questions: "Is the film not offensive enough to warrant a Fatwa?" and "Is it true that the reason that a Fatwa was not issued was because that Fatwas issued by the MUI have no legal standing and hence a waste of time and paper?"

The MUI plays a role in assisting with policy development and to provide insight as to what religious implications there are in policy or law from the perspective of Islam. Therefore, it has an advisory function but the MUI seems to be a lightweight wanting to fight in the heavyweight division. It simply is not a constitutionally defined law making or adjudicative body.

Now, onto the main point of this blog entry, the blocking of Internet sites and bloggers. The Minister of Communication and Information in his infinite wisdom has issued a letter demanding that all Internet Service Providers (ISP) and Network Access Points (NAP) block the film Fitna in order that it cannot be downloaded by Indonesians in Indonesia.

There are a couple of points to be made here. The call to ban and block comes a little too late as the film has been released on the Internet already and those Indonesians with an interest have probably already downloaded it. Those that haven't will find that it is destined to appear on locally hosted sites that ISPs will have much more difficulty in dealing with. Furthermore, the letter left too much discretion to the imagination of ISPs and NAPs in how to deal with this.

This discretion has seen XL (Indonesian phone company - apologies link is in Indonesian) decide to ban access completely to You Tube, My Space, Meta Cafe, and Rapidshare. This is a somewhat extreme maneuver to ensure that one single film does not enter the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia. It also sets a bad precedent on which the government can capitalize on later when it want to restrict access to other objectionable material. Indonesia seems to be returning to an era of the New Order ++ where information and communication restrictions are potentially more repressive than ever.

So, anyone that relies on access to You Tube, My Space, Meta Cafe, or Rapidshare needs to find an ISP or NAP that is yet to block these sites in their entirety or as some have already done find ways of bypassing the blocks instituted by the ISP or NAP.

The current letter was issued under Article 21 of the Telecommunications Law and not the recently enacted Information and Electronic Transactions Law. However, the provisions in both are similar in the manner in which they intend to deal with issues of religious relations, harmony, gambling, threats of violence, and public order.

More on Fitna...

The Dutch government is making all of the right moves in trying to appease the dismay that Geert Wilders' film ever managed to get released. As an aside here, one should never underestimate the power of the Internet. If you have an agenda and an Internet connection you can find yourself an audience without any trouble at all. Mobile phones with cameras and video capabilities mean that the budding film maker in all of us has a chance to find a forum for expression!

The point though of this post is to explore in very little detail the calls by Muslim leaders in Indonesia for the Dutch government to take legal action against Wilders for the film which is described as being anti-Islam. The film is anti-Islam and that is the point of the film. The question of whether free speech has limits, is an interesting one, and the simple answer here is; yes! But just because a section of the community, in this case the world's followers of Islam, feel that the film is offensive still does not mean that there has automatically been a breach of the limits to free speech.

I am not an expert of Dutch law however on face value these are some of the problems that litigation may encounter in the prosecution of Wilders. I must confess here that I still have not watched the film, so what is said from here is based on a more general idea of film content overall.

If it is true that the film contains recorded images of actual events and the selected Suras of the Al-Qu'ran that are inserted are accurate translations of those Suras, then the obvious issue is whether putting images and words together in a particular way is a breach of the limits of freedom of speech? It is clear that it may be a propaganda call or whatever but my question would be does the film call for any explicit violence to be directed back to Islam? If the film incites violence then this might not be a free speech issue but a much more mundane criminal matter. Any additional commentary aside from the images and the various Suras might indeed take the film to a level where it breaches the prevailing Dutch laws and regulations.

However, the fact that the Dutch have yet to make a pronouncement about whether there has been a prosecutable offence committed suggests that it might be a little more difficult than just drawing up an indictment and running with that alone.

However, another interesting point will relate to what happens if the Dutch cannot find a suitable provision under which to pursue Wilders in the legal sense. If he has broken no Dutch laws then what is the response to be? Are calls for Wilders to be killed representative of tolerance for divergent opinions even where those opinions are offensive? Also interesting is the question of whether these Muslim leaders in Indonesia are overplaying their respective hands?

If you demand that the Dutch take action against Wilders for his film (which by most accounts is of relatively poor quality and where most people understand that Wilders has an agenda here so much so that it is being reported that Dutch TV stations won't air it) is the Indonesia Muslim community also committing to a position of upholding the law in Indonesia and demanding the same standard of their own government when it comes to objectionable or offensive films and commentary from Indonesian citizens?

An example would be are these individuals also prepared to come out and criticize Abu Bakar Bashir when he calls for all the khaffirs to be beaten because they are nothing more than maggots, worms, and snakes?

Just a thought about law enforcement in general! But my point is that if Bashir is to have a right to exercise his freedom of speech even where a good section of the broader community and perhaps the world's community of people who fall into the khaffir section find the call and the associated description objectionable and offensive, then why is the same standard not applied across the board. Is this simply a case of wanting your cake and eating it too? Or a case of the pot calling the kettle black? or what is good for the goose also having to be good for the gander as well?

What strikes me is the similarities here between the idea of anything that questions the fundamentals of a religion or religious practices is written off as being anti-whatever and suppressed rather than people engaging in constructive and active debate about the merits of the various and relevant positions. If Wilders film is as poorly constructed as it has been alleged then I am certain the Muslim community could counter the Wilders film with one that is designed to set the record straight as the Muslim communities sees it. The similarities here relate to claims that certain positions are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-whatever...

The idea of suppressing debate and writing things off as simply being anti-something seems to belittle human intelligence and the free will and ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong!

Hypothetically, if a Muslim was to put together a film that questioned the underpinnings of Christianity and highlighted Christianity's penchant for violence from the pre-Crusade days until the present and this film was then released concurrently in Holland and Indonesia would we be having the same freedom of speech debates?

My apologies for the long and winding nature of this post...

Fitna

The blogosphere and just about everywhere else it seems is running stories or making comments about Geert Wilders' film "Fitna". The man has to be loving it because my guess if nothing else he is a little narcissistic and enjoying the attention.

Probably more import for the man is that it gets people talking about his message. The message might be from the far right and anti-immigration in nature but it plays to peoples general feelings of mistrust of those things that are different and that they do not understand. The intolerance of people is a rich vein that is often mined by politicians. For many Australians this is the same vein of fear that Pauline Hanson played to in her, at the time, "surprise" election to the Australian parliament.

I must admit that I have not watched Fitna and can only comment on what is filtering through what I read. If I want to watch it I will have to be fast if I want to watch it on youtube as Indonesia has informed youtube that it will be shutting down access to it if it does not remove Wilders film. The two terms I have most heard used to describe the film is that it is racist and misleading.

The misleading part I understand. Film making is a little bit like statistics in that you can put things together in a certain way to paint any picture you want. Now, my understanding is that Fitna cuts and pastes actual footage of previous terrorist acts and inserts a few selected Suras from the Al-Qu'ran and points to his view that Islam is bad and so are Muslims and presumably this is reason enough to be concerned about a Muslim's motivations of wanting to come to Holland. The film must be put into the context of Wilders own personal existence; that is he has been elected to the Dutch parliament on an anti-immigration platform and this film is his characterization as to why Muslims should not be allowed to immigrate.

The racist angle I have a little more trouble with in terms of the film, particularly if it is targeting Muslims in a general sense. Islam is not in the sense of the UN definition of the term

"racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Perhaps the apt term here is not racist, Wilders' himself may be a racist (but this is an argument and post for a different time), but the question that needs to be asked of this film is whether or not it vilifies a particular religion. If the answer is yes then the next logical question is how should this be dealt with.

Fitna would seem to be a film with an agenda and if it is as some have suggested a compilation of events that have occurred combined with a selective number of Suras from the Al-Qu’ran then I would imagine that Muslim scholars could conceivably respond in a manner that points out the problems or where the film misleads without having to resort to violence.


The idea of free speech is not one where there are no boundaries and to suggest that free speech is simply a matter of anything goes is a misrepresentation in itself. Whether Fitna falls into a protected category of free speech is a legal debate. Yet, just because the material offends does not mean that it is speech that must be censored or banned. If it is speech that vilifies a particular individual or group then there are likely to be restrictions on the speech, and rightly so.


It is unfortunate that rational debate is likely to be overshadowed by the emotional one because a rational debate might just lead us down a path that will take us to a place where there is a greater appreciation and understanding of the differences that separate us. Finding this tolerance is the key to making the world in which we live a much happier one.


Violence only begets more violence. As Gandhi once said “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!”


I have said this many times but it is worth repeating and that is this...we cannot afford to bury our collective heads in the sand and pretend that these issues are not here and confronting us now. Blokes like Wilders need to be met head on and engaged in constructive debate because to just marginalize him and push him to the side is not addressing the fundamental message of hate that he promotes. Simply, ignoring something does not mean it has ceased to exist!

Ridicule if you want, but it is our communal hopes and dreams for a better future that will drive us to a more tolerant and peaceful future.