Supriya Dwivedi wrote an interesting column titled, "Why Hillary Clinton Can't Act Like a Man." In it she complained of the prejudicial treatment women endure at the hands of a sexist media. This is all of course at least partially true, but in an attempt to be different, let's consider: Why a Man Can't Act Like Hillary Clinton. Double standards swing both ways.
Let's get one thing straight: Abubakar Kasim is not advocating for "tolerance, respect and harmony" in his latest piece for the Huffington Post. He's advocating for the banning and censorship of "Innocence of Muslims." While "Innocence of Muslims" contributes nothing whatsoever to the discourse surrounding "one of the world's greatest religions" to ban it would be to ban the understanding of an inciting force that has had gut-wrenching consequences.
The film the Innocence of Muslims has recently been thrust into the spotlight and has played the willing role of firestarter to what can be seen as a tinderbox which harbours the sensitive feelings of my Muslim brothers and sisters. You, my dear Muslim brothers and sisters, fell for it. You have played right into the hands of this hate-monger filmmaker and into the hands of his bigoted friends who view Muslims as "crazy," "intolerant," "violent" all in the same breath. And thanks to you we have handed them another high profile example. On a big fat shiny platter.
There is no justification for the murder of U.S. Ambassor Chris Stevens and three other U.S. diplomats in Benghazi last night. But at the same time, there is no justification for the movie that led to these attacks. The murder of those four Americans is the cause of the recklessness, ignorance and hatred of two parties: extremist Muslims and the film's writer and director, Sam Bacile. Maybe there is no work of art that is worth the loss of life, but at the very least, when individuals are killed over their work, we hope to be able to learn something from the creation in question, we hope that there is some consolatory value in an unnecessary sacrifice. Such is not the case here.
Barack Obama refused to take the lead, but offered support if other countries bit the bullet, so to speak, and led the way. Our politial leaders insisted we were shooting up Libya to protect civilians, not in an effort to replace Gaddafi's oppressive regime. Nonsense, but that's international diplomacy.