Squirming In the Blaze of a Script Line; And Still Affirming Our Universal Values

Ateki Seta Caxton

A few weeks ago, in September that is, the world watched in consternation how several blazeful riots unfolded across the Muslim world targeting Western, especially U.S. diplomatic abodes, in protest against an antiIslamic video posted on YouTube. What transpired during the period (whether classified as direct acts of terrorism or spontaneous reaction to the video) claimed the lives of so many including that of J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to Libya. Nakoula Basseley an Egyptian-born U.S. resident, the man behind The innocence of Muslims, a short video that disparaged Islam's prophet, forced the world to think once again through its global values (of freedom, equal rights, tolerance, peace and shared responsibility, etc) amidst the resulting spar between two abstractions Islam and the West which many have erroneously thought are mutually contradictory. Some said the riots were political and revealed the uncompromising ethos of extremism clawing for any gains against more moderate voices; others asserted they were social and fed by an explosive blend of economic stagnation and anger over U.S.led wars; yet other voices reiterated that this work was part of an insidious attempt to uncouple a whole generation from their prized spiritual base. Nevertheless, the altercation came as the latest in a sequel of events that have periodically put the West and the Muslim world at odds with each other and carried far reaching implications relating to the ways perhaps issues like freedom, tolerance and rights shall be interpreted and implemented subsequently in far flung corners of the globe. In respect to freedom, some hold that the video piece posted on the social media represented an explicit abuse of the right to freedom of expression. Others dont think so. It is essential, however, to bear in mind that many decades ago, freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want were proclaimed as among the highest aspirations of people everywhere; and even at the turn of the century, in the Millennium Declaration, many nations reaffirmed that freedom among other values, was essential for International Relations in the 21st Century. Yet, nothing has been less clearcut in scope or content; and even the most liberal have been on their guard and in a perpetual attitude of defence when unbridled exercise of freedom becomes obvious. One may then ask the question, should any fetters be placed on the right to freedom? And if so where exactly? It is a truism, that ever since man came

together to live in an organized society, there has been a continuous struggle to strike a balance between individual freedoms and the restraining power of the governors. And to find that limit and maintain it against encroachment is indispensable to general wellbeing. Though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, John Stuart Mill, the great 19th Century British Philosopher acknowledged that the practical question where to place the limits, how to make the adjustment between individual freedom and social control is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. All that makes existence valuable to anyone is the placement of restraints upon the actions of other people. Such things as self determination do not really mean the compulsive command of each by himself but the government of each by the rest. And to me, this makes more sense when used in reference to a group, than to the individual. To say that every person has the right to pursue their individual freedoms alone, regardless of the interests or welfare of others would doubtless lead to what Thomas Hobbes described as the state of nature, where anarchy is the rule; and this is undesirable. Values like freedom were meant to enhance general wellbeing of human beings. Even as a Christian I have come to understand that such things as Gods grace or freedom carry with them a huge burden of responsibility. Am I therefore saying that such fundamental freedoms as those of expression should be denied individuals because of their potential to lead to harm on other people? By no means; with exception to scenarios where due recognition and respect of the rights and freedoms of others is hardly likely. John Stuart Mill recognized that silencing the expression of an opinion is, by intent, robbing the entire human race and posterity. If the opinion is right they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. If it is wrong, the truth makes itself clearer, through its collision with such false opinions and gives people better reason to affirm and stay in the truth, and not just hold these truths themselves as ununderstood dogmas. As the world becomes increasingly a melting pot of diversity, such values as freedom, rights tolerance, cooperation, and justice are highly needed. Not that they are going to provide a magic solution to our overarching problems, but that they would help us manage our differences without resorting to violence. The former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, always recalled that the validity of our global values does not depend on whether they are being respected or not. That they represent a collective aspiration providing a standard by which we can all judge our failures; they are not a prescription that such failures never occur. They should thus never be abandoned because a few people have used them wrongly. The Innocence of Muslims has shown the world what it means when our values are trivialised; and that when this happens, the backlash against

those same values goes beyond the voice of reason. Those who feel victimized in the process of testing the boundaries of freedom will often respond perhaps not by similar methods but will counter such prized values by tooth and nail. Those who have succeeded with freedom for example, know that success always exposes some of those weaknesses which failure would have concealed from observation. This means we should take stock of our approaches and adjust to the faults. Letting people everywhere express their identity, without necessarily undermining global values, represents an essential character of freedom. In pursuing our freedoms, we need to keep reminding ourselves that human wellbeing is of the essence, and we can each in our uniqueness freely contribute to building lasting peace and harmony, even on this side of eternity.