Opinion

Appeasement mentality endangers free speech

Last Thursday, The Daily Californian featured an article titled “Can we justify their anger?” In this article, the author seeks to rationalize and justify the fury that has swept through the Islamic world beginning on Sept. 11 this year. I believe that this appeasement mentality that has proliferated through the American psyche is not only dangerous to our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, but also a betrayal of the moderate voices in the Islamic world.

The article emphasizes that Americans cannot fully understand the sanctity of the prophet to Muslims. As an American, I disagree on the grounds that I have something which is as sacred to me as Muhammad is to the Muslims: the First Amendment. I believe that the director of this pathetic, juvenile film has the inalienable right to express his opinion, because defense of free speech does not necessarily constitute an endorsement for the speech itself.

The violence in the Muslim world has brought this film into the spotlight here in the United States. It has driven our administration to condemn the film, Google to remove it from several countries and many — including people mentioned in Thursday’s article — to call for the film to be censored as hate speech. In this respect, the burning of American flags, the murder of American officials and the raising of the flag of Al-Qaeda over American embassies have all been rewarded. Our response has not discouraged this behavior — it has incentivized it. And when we incentivize violence, any voices in the Islamic world calling for a calm and restrained response lose their credibility among fellow Muslims.

When Iranian filmmakers depict Jews as thieving sadists who are out to destroy Christianity and Islam in a full-length movie (Saturday’s Hunter), or when an American photographer submerges a crucifix in urine as a piece of art (Piss Christ), there are no condemnations from our leaders and no large-scale calls for censorship. People who were angered by these creations did not resort to mob violence. No embassies were closed down and no lives were lost. Why is it that when people respond to blatantly offensive “art” in a civil manner, we ignore them, yet when hoards of irate men wreak havoc in the streets of third world countries, we rush to appease them and “justify their anger?”

 — Ron Cook,
UC Berkeley sophomore

Article should have contained more on Judith Butler’s background
The Daily Cal article, “Judith Butler Awarded Adorno Prize” from Sept. 17, surprisingly fails to mention the furor that accompanied this event, held last week in Frankfurt, Germany. UC Berkeley students should not be protected from controversy, particularly as it relates to issues of political critique.

The Jewish community of Frankfurt, including the Jewish mayor of Frankfurt, and many non-Jewish individuals and groups boycotted the award ceremony because of Butler’s controversial statements about Hamas and Hezbollah, which she defines as “progressive” groups of the “global left.” Few people would characterize these militant, fundamentalist, patriarchal, homophobic organizations as either “progressive” or “left.”

The remarks at the center of the furor were made at a teach-in at Cal on Sept. 7, 2006.

A member of the audience submitted the question: “Since the left hesitates to support Hamas and Hezbollah just because of their use of violence, does this hurt Palestinian solidarity?” Butler replied:

“I think: Yes, understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important. That does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn’t stop those of us who are interested in nonviolent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence.”

In response to the recent controversy, Butler made the following clarification in an online journal on Aug. 27:
“I was asked by a member of an academic audience a few years ago whether I thought Hamas and Hezbollah belonged to ‘the global left’ and I replied with two points. My first point was merely descriptive: those political organizations define themselves as anti-imperialist, and anti-imperialism is one characteristic of the global left, so on that basis one could describe them as part of the global left. My second point was then critical: as with any group on the left, one has to decide whether one is for that group or against that group, and one needs to critically evaluate their stand. “

Butler continues to maintain that these groups are on the global left, reasoning by syllogism that “anti-imperialism” entails “left.” The imperia in question are presumably the U.S. and Israel.

Since she also declares her support for nonviolent politics, she implicitly criticizes the tactics, if not the ideology, of these groups. She maintains, in the same online journal, that she has taken no stand regarding the two groups: “I have never taken a stand on either organization, just as I have never supported every organization that is arguably part of the global left.”

These statements are indeed controversial in today’s political climate. Whether her position is warranted or consistent is an intriguing question. I take no stand on this matter. My point is that we ought to not sanitize the news about an eminent Cal professor for student consumption. Reality is complex, and we ought to think about it critically.

— Ron Hendel,
UC Berkeley professor of Hebrew bible biblical literature, religion and history, northwest semitic philology, comparative mythology

Campus needs to increase amount of bike racks

I have noticed the bicycle is a popular means of getting places around campus. However, despite the abundance of bike parking on campus, there still appears to be a lack of bike racks at just about every building throughout campus, particularly on Upper Sproul Plaza by Golden Bear Cafe and by Moffitt Library. This is apparent by the number of bicycles parked improperly, locked to light posts or hand railings. Rather than accommodating the demand for convenient and proper bike parking, the university has instead found it preferable to impound the bikes parked improperly. It would seem that if the university truly sought to encourage students to cycle and to make the campus more environmentally friendly that improperly parked bicycles would serve as indicators of where proper, official bike racks are needed. Unfortunately, in my three years at Cal, no bike racks have been added to the aforementioned locations.

— Severin Martinez,
UC Berkeley junior and urban studies major

Contact the opinion desk at [email protected]

Comment Policy

Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.

Comments

comments