May 17, 2012
FSM HOT TOPICS
Exclusive: ‘The Jewel of Medina’ - Where is Thomas Paine When We Need Him?
by DR. ROBIN MCFEE September 2, 2008
Some political pundits have suggested journalism died in 2008 as major media outlets peddle “op-ed pieces” as if they were fact-based articles, thus abandoning their responsibility to present information in a neutral, information-based manner in favor of ideology-driven endorsements. If this is true, can the demise of a free (printing) press be far behind? Sadly, it would seem so. So much for land of the free, home of the brave…clearly not when one of the premier publishing houses succumbs to political correctness and decides not to release a potentially controversial book - The Jewel of Medina, a novel about the prophet Mohamed and his wife, written by Sherry Jones.
What happened to being a nation of laws, not of men, as John Adams opined? Since when does the threat of outrage, even (illegal) violence trump free expression? In one seemingly simple action, largely ignored by the mainstream media, so many social, legal and ethical issues have arisen. What so many fought for centuries ago seems to have lost its value. Our nation was built upon courageous writers, rabble rousers – articulate all, but controversial never the less. Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin – two of the American Revolution’s great thinkers and most prolific, provocative writers, understood the need for and power of a free press – whether in the form of book, pamphlet or bills tacked to trees. Often highly critical of the British Crown or government, the discovery of said author could be rewarded by imprisonment or death. Today, aside from the symbolic public pillory, authors face little risk in the U.S., or so we thought! Interestingly Sherry Jones’ book was not an excoriation of a government, king or religion! It was a novel! Home of the brave indeed!
Clearly, publishing houses have a right to select manuscripts that they believe have commercial value, and a responsibility to protect authors and employees from credible threats. This episode could have been played by any of the major publishing houses. Playing “angel’s advocate,” perhaps Random House truly believed it was being protective by considering the possibility of retribution or attacks upon staff or authors. After all, how many times have commercial entities been criticized for failing to consider the ramifications of their actions? But publishing houses, like other forms of media, are the last bastions of free expression and ultimately a protector of those freedoms. It is a significant privilege; and an enormous responsibility. Random House abrogated its responsibility.
What was the credible threat beyond concern of offending? Where was and who issued the fatwa against Ms. Jones? From all accounts, the biggest outcry came from a non Muslim professor! A Random House spokesperson stated there were concerns about a potential threat as the book might be considered offensive to certain Muslims. Newsflash…books are supposed to offend. They might even enlighten, entertain, or comfort. Sometimes a good book may do all of the above…that’s “Publishing 101.”
No one will argue that every writer has a right to a book contract, but everyone does have a right to express his thoughts. To succumb to an ill-defined potential threat – for our society to tacitly support such behavior is an act of surrender. What has happened to the United States in the 21st century, where one voice cries louder than another? Is the opinion of the Muslim-American community of greater, lesser or equal worth to the Italian-American, Irish-American, African-American or Latino-American voice? Why our willing abandonment of hard-fought for constitutional Rights of free speech? Voltaire once opined that he would defend to his death a person’s right to free speech, even if he disagreed with the opinion. We cannot tolerate coercion, intimidation, nor can we allow those behaviors to undermine our values. As Edmund Burke is often quoted – “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” Evil triumphs when free thought is curtailed. Moreover the preemptive censorship was a disservice to a large, moderate Muslim community within the United States who are more than capable to decide whether to buy or ignore a novel about their religious tradition. Cannot Muslims or any other group for that matter be trusted to support free expression? And should they choose to prevent such free thought, should the rest of us enable such behavior in the U.S.?
Random House and other publishing houses considering such actions should give both the author and the majority Muslim community some credit for an ability to think. Sherry Jones, like other authors of potentially controversial issues, knew the risk going into the project. And Muslim-Americans, like other Americans are capable of reading or ignoring works about their religion without resorting to violence.
Clearly we don’t need a holy war on book publishing. But this isn’t Riyadh, Russia, or even parts of the “Deep South,” where books on evolution have been burned. Nor is Ms. Jones a Salman Rushdie. She has not invented a new way to critically examine or criticize Islam, the Prophet Mohamed or his loved ones. But so what if she did? It is her right. Would this or any other publishing house have canceled a book that claimed Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus for fear of Catholic retribution? Are there no extremist Catholics? What about books on the Ku Klux Klan? There are quite a few books published about that organization, yet how many authors were assassinated? One wonders if the book was offensive to Catholics or Baptists if the publishers would have preemptively censored it for fear of violence. More than likely the promotional folks would have capitalized on the publicity and enjoyed the resulting curiosity driven sales. How many people bought tickets to the movie Dogma after several Catholic dioceses publicly criticized the film?
In an era of radical Islamic terrorism, unfortunately Muslims have become a ready, easy target for concern. The West is all too familiar with images of riots in the Middle East and even European countries when perceived offenses against Islam occurred as a response to irreverent cartoons, books decrying the extremism of bin Laden or outright criticism of high profile Imams. Clearly, extremist fanatics tend to violence when they do not have their way or perceive an offense. But only the radical few behave in such infantile, albeit dangerous ways. However as the seventh anniversary of 9/11 drawers near, such extremist threats loom large as we remember the carnage in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. And we fear the likelihood of repeat events. But the rationale for Random House’s preemptive censorship is a cautionary one – should we exchange security for liberty? If we do, we will deserve neither. What could easily be dismissed as a business move or overreaction is really an example of our freedoms being whittled away – and it must stop!
Random House as a venerable and outstanding publishing house, it is not solely to blame. Beyond fear of violence or even lawsuits, which all corporations face, there are issues far more insidious and dangerous occurring within society that fosters this preemptive censorship – and with it the erosion of our freedoms.
First, as a society we still cannot participate in or foster open discussions of religion especially in the aftermath of 9/11 but also in the context of creation/evolution, abortion, same sex marriages. Religion, Islam or not, remains the elephant in the room. Until we can have honest discourse without riot, epithets, intimidation or false accusations of racism, xenophobia or “anti-this” or “anti-that,” we will not arrive at a point of peaceful coexistence.
Second, the permeation of “political correctness” (PC). In our zeal to accept all, we end up tolerating few. Perhaps one could argue that the origins of PC were to foster a more accepting, tolerant society. But like many ideas, they can be hijacked; evil can often exist in the guise of good. PC may have started off as an approach to reducing stereotypes or hate speech or ethnic jokes, but PC has devolved into a form of thought police, and is as intolerant of disagreement or difference as the “offenses” (perceived or real) that it evolved to diffuse. And with such intolerance PC has lost the moral high ground. PC is now perspective and ideology-driven. Therein is the problem: when one perspective is (self) anointed as righteous, the other side in this zero sum game must by extension become vilified. But a free society is based upon an honest exchange of competing, even potentially distasteful ideas. It is up to the people to decide which ideas to embrace and which to discard.
In our efforts to not offend, we have become less free. Thus these two issues have hampered our ability to grow as a nation in the broad sense, and in the microcosm to evaluate and critically examine political candidates or social policy for fear of accusations on racism, gender bias or ageism. Open discussions on bilingual education, immigration, HIV and fragmented family structures are all but taboo. PC has effectively curtailed a free exchange of ideas and issues that could have significant impact upon the future of our country. Sherry Jones’ book is the latest casualty. What should be non issues have become contentious exchanges. We have lost our way. And with it our freedoms and some good will, too!
Freedom of expression doesn’t mean freedom from expression. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion. Eliminating differences, especially in expression and methods of celebration as we now see at Christmas - excuse me “holiday” time - is not the same as eliminating the strains that exist between groups. One could argue that they exacerbate strains. Selectively silencing one group because it might offend another group – who should decide which group gets silenced? Should any side be silenced? In the name of PC? In the end, it devalues all of us when some are considered worthy of protection or deemed necessary to silence.
What if there was a credible threat to Random House or Ms. Jones? Should preemptive censorship occur? We have embarked upon a slippery slope. Consider the outcry if the government told Random House they couldn’t publish the book because of FBI information about a threat or because it offended Uncle Sam. Every publishing house would band together to overturn such a prohibition. Is preemptive censorship any different than forced censorship? Is not the dangerous precedent now established? Are we not concerned about the impact if enough (whatever number defines “enough”) people object to an upcoming book or article, movie or blog that it will be cancelled? We live in a free market society; if you don’t like the concept, create a competitive or opposition piece. Identity politics, political correctness and thought policing – is this good for the security of our nation?
Once again, freedom took a holiday – all because a novel about a member of the early Muslim religion “might” offend. What will cause the next preemptive censorship? Will it be a book about witches in Salem, or people who advocate nuclear war, or a novel describing Jesus as the father of twins? Books always have the opportunity to offend. Thoughts usually have a way of expressing themselves, and when expression is curtailed or confined, often the outlets and ramifications are less pleasant than conventional means. Though none of us will lose much sleep because a novel about a young woman of Islam wasn’t published, we should lose sleep when our freedoms are eroded. We rise or fall as a society. Our nation cannot survive if it becomes merely a holding pen of loosely affiliated groups that don’t share in a commonly held set of values; our greatness derives from a bond cutting across all communities based upon respect for all and support of individual liberties. When we allow any group to dominate or intimidate, none of us are truly free. As society we cannot afford to allow freedom to take many more holidays.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Dr. Robin McFee is a physician and medical toxicologist. An expert in WMD preparedness, she is a consultant to government agencies, corporations and the media. Dr. McFee is a member of the Global Terrorism, Political Instability and International Crime Council of ASIS International. She has authored numerous articles on terrorism, health care and preparedness, and coauthored two books: Toxico-Terrorism by McGraw Hill and The Handbook of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Agents, published by Informa/CRC Press.
Dr. Robin McFee is a physician and medical toxicologist. An expert in WMD preparedness, she is a consultant to government agencies, corporations and the media. Dr. McFee is the former director and cofounder of the Center for Bioterrorism Preparedness (CB PREP) and was bioweapons - WMD adviser to the Regional Domestic Security Task Force Region 7 after 911, as well as advisor on avian and swine flu preparedness to numerous agencies and organizations. Dr. McFee is a member of the Global Terrorism, Political Instability and International Crime Council of ASIS International. She has authored numerous articles on terrorism, health care and preparedness, and coauthored two books: Toxico-Terrorism by McGraw Hill and The Handbook of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Agents, published by Informa/CRC Press.
Join FSM and stay informed. Get your daily Security Update delivered each day to your e-mail.
WTH?! House Republicans want to preserve 'popular' parts of Obamacare mandate
May 16, 2012 11:19 PM
Politico is in the tank for Dems, and yet some conservatives are just taking Politico's word about the GOP keeping parts of ObamaCare.— RB (@RBPundit) May 17, 2012 What part of “UNDO OBAMACARE” don’t the Beltway Republican leaders understand? Yes, this is a Politico story. But 1) Republican crapweasels leak to Politico all the time; [...]
Jon Huntsman's daughter: My dad should run for mayor of New York City
May 16, 2012 11:16 PM
NYC seems to like wealthy RINOs. Huntsman would fit in perfectly! Then again, not everyone seems so enthusiastic: Is your grandpa going to buy it for him? @HuntsmanAbby: Trying to convince dad @JonHuntsman to run for mayor of NYC. Thoughts? #whynot?”— (@Toffleresque) May 17, 2012 What about Nebraska Senate seat? RT @HuntsmanAbby: Trying to [...]
Pig Maher: Romney bullying is way worse than child molestation
May 16, 2012 11:01 PM
Appearing as a guest on Conan O’Brien’s TV show last night, comedian Bill Maher thought it would be a good idea to say this: But as far as this bullying, you know, this made me think of of of the Michael Jackson situation. Because, you know, he was accused of being a child molester. We’ll never know [...]
Team Obama: It's awful that in 2012 use of birth control has become controversial
May 16, 2012 09:06 PM
Nice strawman, clearly designed to scare soccer moms by stoking fears about scary religious-right fanatics. In Saudi Arabia, use of birth control might be controversial. Here in the United States, by contrast, the Supreme Court ruled 47 years ago that use of birth control is a constitutional right. There is no serious effort afoot to overturn [...]
MTV bows to Obama on speech conflict
May 16, 2012 08:26 PM
MTV Juggles VMA Telecast to Appease Obama's Fading Youth Vote dlvr.it/1ZYrv4— Breitbart.com Feed (@BreitbartFeed) May 16, 2012 "That's one really tough decision out of the way," said no one. MT @VanityFair: MTV Awards Same Time as Obama Speech vnty.fr/JvN3cc— Gabbi Baker (@gabbibaker) May 16, 2012 Via Deadline Hollywood: MTV does not want to split the [...]
FSM Archives
blog comments powered by Disqus