28 April, 2008 Fitna. Free Speech at a price.

The film begins with a caricature of Prophet Mohammad with a time bomb on his head counting down and ends with text saying Islam “seeks to destroy our Western civilisation”.

 Dutch television stations refused to air the fifteen-minute film called ‘Fitna’, which means ‘strife’ or ‘conflict’ in Islamic. The film-maker, anti-immigration Dutch legislator, Geert Wilders, released the film on the Internet in March. It was viewed by more than five million people in the first few hours of its posting.

The film reproduced pages of the Quran with translations of passages and statements from radical clerics calling on followers to defend the faith and slay their enemies, and to conquer the world. This was juxtaposed by images of the terrorist attacks in Madrid, in London, and on the World Trade Center. It shows captives and women being beheaded by militants to the soundtrack of people screaming. It also shows a three-year-old girl being taught to call Jews “apes and pigs”, amongst other horrible things.

‘Tehelka’ a magazine reproduced online, writes: “Wilders, a shrewd politician, has touched a milestone in his anti-Islam crusade. His film designed to offend, has earned him both death threats and an expanding electoral base”. It argues that the film was targeted at the growing fear among Europeans of a perceived Islamic threat to their cultural identities with the increase of migration.

International bodies and foreign ministers of both Muslim and non-Muslim countries have condemned the film, stating that it served no other purpose than inciting violence. However, the European Union also said that free speech gave him a right to express his views.

Wilders, the leader of the conservative right-wing Party for Freedom (which has nine seats in the 150-member Dutch parliament) argues that the film’s intention was to encourage debate.

But at what cost?

The film prompted protests across the world, including in the Netherlands, Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia and Iran. Although the film may not have resulted in the large-scale protests or violence that was predicted, this horrific depiction and attempt to generalise all Muslims is likely to have influenced ideas of the religion in the minds of many viewers, which may result in further tension.

Geert Wilder has already been praised by like-minded people. Amongst other hate-driven blog entries on the Internet, the ‘Islamic Forum’ of a blog site called Topix has created a forum called “Geert Wilder – A true HERO!”

‘Smitty the infidel’, clearly influenced by Fitna, blogged: “Oppose Islam and you will be opposing terrorism. There is no difference. Islam and terrorism are one”.

Concerns over Wilder’s film follow the uproar over a Danish newspaper’s publication of caricature depicting Prophet Mohammad in late 2005. Demonstrations took place across the world after other newspapers reprinted the images as a statement on free speech. Fitna has reignited the debate about free speech and the barriers which should be placed on the privilege.

Because of Wilder’s right to free speech, the Dutch government could not use the law to stop Fitna from being broadcasted. Nor have they been able to persecute him following the posting. In fact, it is other people’s rights that have been damaged by his film. The Indonesian government temporarily blocked YouTube, MySpace, Google Video and other file-sharing sites to prevent people from watching the anti-Islamic film because the film “could disturb relations between the faiths”.

The freedom of expression has been recognised at an International level in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified in Australia in 1980. There is also recognition at this level that free speech is not absolute and carries with it special duties and responsibilities.

However, in Australia, the laws of Religious and Racial Vilification are extremely complex and have a number of defences to protect people’s free speech. Free speech has become even more complicated with the introduction of the Internet.

Fitna has certainly sparked the debate about Islam, as its maker says was its intention. It’s also highly likely that it incited hatred and violence, as well as offended many millions of people around the world. One perhaps unintended consequence is the debate that it has started about free speech. So..

Was Wilders within his rights to make and release this film as an expression of speech?

“Legally speaking I do not think that Wilders can be charged for creating and releasing this film…However, I do not believe that he was within his rights as a human to create this film of hatred”.
Adam Leonard, aged 20, of NSW

“Yes, absolutely”.
Amanda, aged 20, of Newcastle, NSW

“The notion of freedom of speech in part originates from the writings of Thomas Paine who states that ‘people should be able to say and do what they wish as long as what they say and do does not harm or inflict on the freedoms of others’. What Wilders has done clearly does not correlate with this notion”.
Ian Fenton, aged 21, of Canberra, ACT

“I have studied the Quran and other Islamic texts…Wilders is well within his rights to make and release this film as it presents truth”.
Isaac, aged 26

“The freedom of speech should never be an unqualified freedom. It should not be a freedom to hurt others. Some freedoms should be ranked higher than others. The freedom to live in peace and not be subject to discrimination or persecution- I think those are higher freedoms”.
Justin Li, aged 26, of Eastwood, NSW

Is hate speech or incitement of violence justified by promoting public debate about important issues?

“No, public debate is based upon the search for truth and is only productive when founded upon realistic and truthful arguments. Clearly hate speech and one-sided views do not assist in producing public debate which is likely to benefit society”.
Ian Fenton, aged 21, of Canberra, ACT

“Presentation of truth and reasonable criticism of any ideology or religion must always be justified in law. Incitement of violence can never be justified but if political correctness is used to label an honest revelation of a religion's dangerous teachings as hate speech or incitement of violence, then in that particular instance such speech must be allowed - if it is the truth about a religion or ideology”.
Isaac, aged 26

“I don't think hate speech and incitement of violence can ever be justified, no matter the aims”.
Justin Li, aged 26, of Eastwood, NSW

“It can occasionally bring up a debate that must be discussed but that could be done as effectively through peaceful means”.
Adam Leonard, aged 20, of NSW

Where should the line be drawn between freedom of speech and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred?

“Freedom of speech must always be upheld. The line is to be drawn when speech directly puts a human individual/s down for having certain racial characteristics, or for holding certain religious titles or traditions which are well within the laws of our democratic and free nation”.
Isaac, aged 26

“The line should be drawn where social harm is caused. In a way, it's no different to governments requiring compulsory schooling of teenagers until they reach a certain age, or compulsory vaccination programs, or having traffic regulations. Sure, some freedoms are lost in each case but that is for the greater social good.
Justin Li, aged 26, of Eastwood, NSW

Should Wilders be prosecuted?

It depends on the laws of his country, but had his comments been made and the film produced here in Australia it is likely that he would have been charged with defamation, discrimination and attempts to incite hate crimes. But seeing as his comments were posted on the Internet maybe he should be prosecuted internationally”.
Ian Fenton, aged 21, of Canberra, ACT,

“If he is persecuted, what kind of precedence is set in society? Will we create societies where people can not express any controversial view out of fear of being accused of intolerance and racial or religious hatred”.
Isaac, aged 26

“Yes, I believe that he should…regardless of what his reasons were for creating the film, the long-term impact on the ignorant and gullible viewers far outweighs any public debate raised”.
Adam Leonard, aged 20, of NSW

“No. He is exercising his freedom of speech by critiquing the teachings of an ideology/religion. If it is true that his views do not represent true Islam, then Islamic leaders should respond with a response, debunking any of his false claims. But the State should not be involved in settling religious matters like this”.
Amanda, aged 20, of Newcastle, NSW

What sort of implications do you think this film would have?

“Some, very few, unwise people may be abusive or aggressive towards Muslims. I believe most Australians - including those who are very concerned about Islam - want to challenge and confront Islam in legal and peaceful ways”.
Isaac, aged 26

“I don't think anyone would come to hate Muslims by viewing this video; the kind of people who hate Muslims would hate them regardless. However, the video will draw people to question the true teachings of Islam. This is an excellent move for robust debate and democratic free thought”.
Amanda, aged 20, of Newcastle, NSW

If you have seen the film, what did it leave you feeling?

“The film says one message to me: ‘Stop Islam and Muslims before they stop you’. It is a very basic hate message that plays off people’s fears and terror”.
Adam Leonard, aged 20, of NSW

“It left me wanting an explanation. Wilders didn't create those Qur'anic quotes”.
Amanda, aged 20, of Newcastle, NSW

Does the law of freedom of speech need to be changed to stop this kind of expression?

“Yes. The migrant community in NSW has long urged for tougher anti-racial vilification laws. At present, there are legal exceptions to the laws (again supported by freedom of speech advocates) which have caused much difficulties to bringing successful prosecutions”.
Justin Li, aged 26, of Eastwood, NSW

“The law does not need to be changed to stop this kind of expression. People need to know that truth - only then can we effectively work toward a solution”.
Isaac, aged 26

“No, as we are talking about minorities… Wilders is a minority that wants to create a pure hatred for Muslims. If we abolish or restrict people’s rights to freedom of speech than we would be in a world much worse off”.
Adam Leonard, aged 20, of NSW

“Absolutely not”.
Amanda, aged 20, of Newcastle, NSW