Night and Luck

Midterms are finally over for me; now I have to catch up with all the work I missed because of mock trial and midterms. Speaking of mock trial, our regional competition was this past weekend. It was rather bittersweet. So we got a bid to nationals, but so did two other Yale teams. Per American Mock Trial Association regulations, each university is only allowed to send two teams to either a national tournament or championship. Since our bid was the lowest place at 7th place, we got shafted. Not only did that bit hurt, but I am going to miss my team and hanging out with them. All I know is that next year, we will be back with a vengance.
This past week was also Islamic Awareness Week, which a was a huge success compared to last year. We were even featured on the Connecticut local news. I am very proud of what we have accomplished and even prouder of my friend who is the political chair on the MSA board, and so had a huge hand to play in organizing IAW.

I also saw an amazing movie tonight; Good Night, and Good Luck. Not only did I leave wanting to change my career path to journalism (which I am sure the movie Philadelphia and A Civil Action will change immediately), but I left wanting to be Edward R. Murrow, who didn't look bad in his pin-stripe suits. He also made smoking look really cool; almost enough for me to want to take it up. The film was entirely in black and white, which really put you back in a time when TV wasn't all color and lights and you had to actually have news to entertain and inform people. The use of real footage of McCarthy was brilliant, and the overarching message of the film rings loud and clear for me. I have stopped watching the TV for news, which I know would have broken Murrow's heart. But I guess I hope that my turn away will signal a need to change to the networks about the way they deliver the news and what they decide is the news.

So I leave you with Murrow's classic sign off....

Good Night, and Good Luck.

Not About Freedom of Speech

My editorial didn’t end up getting published because someone else beat me to the paper, but here it is as promised:

In September 2005, a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Postens, published a series of political cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in a derogatory manner; in one of them, he was depicted wearing a bomb shaped turban. These cartoons were later republished in Austria in January, and then later in newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain.  They ignited a number of protests in Muslim communities around the world, including diplomatic protests and boycotts of Danish goods.  Some of these protests quickly turned to violence, as with the burning of the Danish mission in Beirut on February 5.

When the Danish newspaper published these cartoons, they expected a strong reaction from their public.  Little did they know the global furor they would incite.  Undoubtedly, these cartoons are repugnant and hateful, and Muslims around the world have the right to be offended at their contents.  Nevertheless, as a Muslim, I cannot condone the violence that has been incited, no matter how offensive the cartoons were.  Prophet Muhammad once said, “You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness.”  That philosophy should ring true for every Muslim.  To react with violence takes away from the legitimacy of our demands to be treated with equality and tolerance and this violence is never acceptable in Islam.

With that said, I want to emphasize that Muslims do have the right to be insulted by the contents of these political cartoons.  They perpetuate stereotypes in an already hostile environment that promotes discrimination and ignorant behavior towards the Muslim community.  Putting aside religious arguments regarding the ban on images of Muhammad and whether non-Muslims must abide by it (an issue that has seemed to dominate the popular media), people should recognize what is at stake here.  It is not freedom of speech.  I will agree that these cartoons are protected speech, just as all hate speech in the U.S. is considered protected speech.  We may not be able to ban the KKK or the American Nazi Party from spewing hatred, but we certainly do not have to promote it through our major news publications.  You would be hard-pressed to find a mainstream newspaper in either Europe or in the U.S. that would print cartoons that risk being labeled racist or anti-Semitic. In an interview with the International Herald Tribune, the editor of Jyllands-Postens stated that he would never publish a cartoon showing Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, because it would be deemed racist.  Why is that any different from disparaging the image of Muhammad, the most influential person in Islam?  Why has it become okay to insult Muslims and Islam? What’s really at stake here is the value of pluralism.  When Jyllands-Postens printed these cartoons and other major newspapers in Europe began to re-publish them, it sent a message that alienated and deeply upset the Muslim community that call Europe their home – a home that has become increasingly Islamophobic.  Certainly these cartoons did nothing to help the assimilation problems many of these Muslims already face.  In a society that wants to advance tolerance and acceptance of other cultures and beliefs (which is all tied into freedom of expression), publishing cartoons of this nature only creates discord and bigotry.  

The universal right to freedom of speech should not be used to promote immoral and hateful forms of expression.  That would be the undoing of the freedom itself.

Last Minute

So in the 30 minutes I have before my MSA board meeting, I thought I would blog. I was asked by my executive board to write an editorial to the Yale Daily News about the recent political cartoons published in a major Danish newspaper showing the Prophet Muhammad (S) in a derogatory manner. Clearly the intention was to incite, and they were sucessful in their goals. I will post my editorial on my blog, but until then if anyone has any comments of how I should address this. I am also going to tie it into my residential college newsletter and their recent illustrations of a TGI-Ramadan, where a Muslim is blowing up an Olive Garden and Muslims ordering pork dishes. It's all related; and it all makes me sad.

I was thinking while I was walking to class today, why can't I live in a world where people accept my religion and not ridicule it? And at the same time, when people do, why can't all Muslims deal with it appropriately rather than in violence? Uneducated and illiterate Muslims reactions to this event really shouldn't count, but they do...and now we (being Muslims) spend the next few weeks treading this thin line where we say the cartoons were unacceptable, but so were violent Muslim reactions to it. And the cycle starts over again...

Testing the Waters

Back again and procrastinating from my constitutional law reading. Not that I don't enjoy it....it's just that I am feeling really lazy right now. So you know, I was looking back at my old blogs, back in the beginning, when I was trying to be serious, and you know they were quite good. So I am going to try to be deep again, now that I have the time.

Last night, I had a wonderful time with a couple of my friends from my mock trial team. We called it a bitchfest, but we didn't bitch as much as gossip. And I told them all the stories that the rest of the team will just hear later about mock trial, mockcest, and fight night. Yes...very deep indeed.

I also watched The Constant Gardener last night. It was very good, but also very depressing, but what political movies aren't. The premise of the movie was all new to my friends, but those of us who have been immersed in bioethics for the past 4 years, know all about the pharmaceutical companies and their moves to conduct research trials internationally, where medical research regulations are more lax. Yet, it was just as poignant for me. You know that sensation where you've heard about something for so long, and then you finally see it. I mean this was only movie (a very well made one at that), but it put a human face to all the papers I've read and all the lectures I have attended. I think I will break down when I go to Africa to see it in person.

One of the characters in the movie, played by Rachel Weisz, was a passionate advocate for human rights. What an amazing person to play! What an amazing person to be...she reminded me a lot of my boss at the Bioethics Center. If there is anyone who inspires me everyday, it would be her. To have such faith in people, to have such driving passion, it must be a wonderful life (but also tiring). You see all of these college students with their issues that they take up now, but forget about when they leave college; that's not what I want to become. I want to be passionate and dedicated to an issue, but only after I feel I have grown enough as a person to feel comfortable advocating for an issue that I really care about, that I will work for the rest of my life.

When I was walking back from the movie, I ran into one of my freshmen friends. He said, when I asked him about what he thought of the movie, "It makes me want to go out and save the world." I couldn't have put my feelings any better.

Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage. - Anais Nin