The term 'freedom of expression' has been under assault since 9/11, writes Dutch columnist Ebru Umar. The murder of her friend the film maker Theo van Gogh being a telling example. Radio Netherlands Worldwide invited Umar to share her vision of how the 9/11 attacks that shook the world ten years ago have affected free speech.
by Ebru Umar
Everyone has that picture. Had it. Posing against New York’s skyline. Mine dates back to 1996. Ten years later I was back. Except I was standing at Ground Zero — a minor detail. Seeing the yawning hole, anyone in his sane mind can only conclude: “A bunch of mountain goats from Tora Bora are supposed to have caused this? Sure — and pigs can fly.”
11 September 2001
This opinion piece is part of our 9/11 coverage. See also:
After 9/11, silence is sometimes golden by Thomas von der Dunk
Wrong movie
The worst thing that had happened to me before 2001 probably was totalling my Volkswagen. Innocence ruled. Murder and mayhem were absent from my life. Breaking through the glass ceiling was my main focus.
On 11 September 2001 I was working for Dutch banking and insurance group ING. That morning someone came running along the corridor saying a plane had slammed into the World Trade Center. A television was arranged in the CEO’s room. Two dozen people packed into the office watched as the second plane hit the South Tower.
It was a bad movie, and 15 minutes later it got even worse. A Delft University-educated engineer standing behind me had just reassured me the towers had been built so well they could not collapse when, seconds later, the first one came down. We were glued to the screen: disaster tourism anno 2001.
Watershed
It was an historic watershed after which the term 'freedom of expression' came under fire. Before 9/11, freedom of expression still meant something. It referred to the way people could express, as a matter of course without suffering any consequences, verbal or written criticism of our rulers, the authorities or anyone else wielding influence, or even deride them. Name-calling and discrimination were still considered rude and boorish behaviour, not something people took pride in practicing under the guise of free speech.
After 2001, a polarisation took hold, an us-and-them world in which the Cold War was replaced by East and West, Christian and Muslim, locals and immigrants. As a highly-educated, elitist snob working in the business world, I was long able to avoid the discussion — until I met Theo van Gogh. “Are you a Muslim?”, he asked me in a mocking tone. The answer led to a friendship that only ended on 2 November 2004, the day he was killed by an Islamist.
That was, for me, the day the Twin Towers really crumbled. It was the moment I saw for myself how much freedom of speech had been devalued. The us-and-them contrast had become irreversible, and I realised that totalling my Volkswagen would only be a footnote to my life’s disasters.
Bad taste
Free speech is precarious. To be jailed for voicing your views about a regime or government is not the same thing as bravely daring to abuse your neighbour. That is just bad taste. Free speech is daring and being allowed to question whether those two planes that a bunch of idiots parked in the World Trade Center really caused the three buildings to collapse.
Free speech is daring and being allowed to state that the collapse of the three buildings happened with extreme accuracy — if a bunch of Arab idiots can act with such precision, why then is there total chaos in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and so many North African countries?
Free speech is daring and being allowed to admit that “money makes the world go round”, in other words, that the United States has benefited from the wars they have waged in the Middle East with revenge for Ground Zero as a pretext.
Free speech is both daring and being allowed to wonder how far the US government would go in order to carry out missions and military operations in other continents and own the oil supply.
Free speech is daring and being allowed to say that the words of the Delft engineer and engineers around the world continue to echo ten years on: the vertical collapse of two buildings plus a third one cannot have been caused by two hijacked planes.
Damage
Those planes were indeed crashed into the World Trade Center by a bunch of Islamist fanatics who had an axe to grind with the US. That I don’t doubt at all. But whether the material, mental, economic and political damage caused by those Muslim fanatics - the mountain goats from Tora Bora - resulted from their poor flying skills is something I publicly refuse to believe. That I can write, say and publish this — that is freedom of speech.
(cl/rk/imm/ld)
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of Radio Netherlands Worldwide
© Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
That I can write, say and publish this — that is freedom of speech.
Free speech is that they are continuing to terrorise the world. 13 innocent people killed and scores injured in New Delhi blast on Wednesday..When will this end? What was the fault of these people?
Let reason be opposed to reason, and argument to argument, and every good society will be safe.
Dear Ms. Umar,
I admire your courage to bring this important discussion into main stream media and literally putting your face on it. I'm curious, however, as to the motivation of RNW to publish such a story. You've inspired me to share one of my opinoins. Many of our liberties and rights have been and continue to be taken away from us in the U.S. in the name of security and terrorism. What people seem to be missing often times is that when you hurt someone far from home they may become motivated to come to your doorstep and hurt you. We don't need full body (cancer emitting) scanners and inspection of our underpants in our airports. What we need is to stop hurting people in places where we have no business being just because we want to make money from rebuilding their cities and encouraging their populations to come on board with us in order to suck up their human and mineral resources. The experts say that more and smaller attacks are coming. Brace yourselves. Want to be part of the solution? We need to urge our politicians to stop allowing military industrial corporate interests from continuing to commit atrocities abroad and to concentrate on our local issues at home.
Get out of other people's backyards and they will be less likely to show up in your neigborhood!
Waiting to hear more from you,
Americano
9/11 is not a single isolated incident, but another chapter that drew attention to the daily violence that Islam has stirred up since its beginning. We’re only 8 days into September and already over 90 are killed in the name of Islam:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
Deflecting responsibilty doesn’t mend fences or change anything. Of course you are entitled to express your opinion and believe any nonsense you like without fear of bodily harm, provided it doesn’t conflict with the Koran.
You read some rambling musings about a changing world and a conspiracy theory and you respond with some anti-islam spam? What are you, part of some christian political group?
Are we allowed to use these comment boards are for anything we want? If so, I've got an old 13" monitor I'd like to sell. Any takers?
Inflated Ted,
Perhaps you should have looked up the word spam (unsolicited bulk message) before you used it. I responded with a link to a well documented website that is not associated with any religious group:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AboutSite.htm
I must agree with your characterization of Ms. Umar’s article as rambling musings.
dwirb,
I was referring to the content of your message, which didn't relate very well to the story. I have no interest in your link.
“rambling musings about a changing world and a conspiracy theory” fits Ms. Umar’s article to a tee, whether ot not this was your intent.
“Rambling musings” (lengthy meandering thoughts) is not applicable to my 4 sentence response or to the link that provided only hard data to back up my claim of ongoing violence in the name of Islam.
"But whether the material, psychic, economic and political damage caused by those Muslim fanatics or mountain goats from Tora Bora resulted from their poor flying skills is something I publicly refuse to believe."...Response: Even mountain goats from Tora Bora can fly a plane once it has been set on "autopilot"; therefore, five or six Muslim fanatics, who have advanced skills beyound riding camels, should be able to take over a jet airliner, set the autopilot, and yell Allahu Akbar. "That I can write, say and publish this—that is freedom of expression." Freedom of Expression is a Western Ideal. If we don't defend our freedoms by being vigilant of those who would deprive our freedoms, we will lose them. Thank you Geert Wilders for defending our freedoms from those who would destroy them.
Geert wants to ban books, restrict clothing choices, and evict people he perceives as 'not western enough'. Wilders is not a champion of free expression. He's a champion of repression.
"He's a champion of repression."...So would you say women should be forced to wear clothing (burqas)over their heads? Wearing burquas is a form of "Expression." Let a Muslim woman refuse to wear a burga and see what happens to her. Even if a Muslim man wanted to let his wife or daughter not wear a burga, the Muslim community would ostracise the family to the point of complying or leaving the community. Would you be a champion of "freedom of expression" and let women wear buras or would you be like Wilders and champion repression?
I've heard that in some western countries, women can be arrested or fined for going topless at the beach. Or leaving the house naked. Standards and customs vary from place to place.
Do you approve of full freedom of choice, Hiram? If a stark naked lady walked up to you in Nowheresville, USA, you wouldn't ostracise her? You think she'd be safe to go about her daily errands unclad?
All cultures subjugate women to a certain degree. Some more than others.
"All cultures subjugate women to a certain degree. Some more than others."...Just because "all" cultures subjugate women to a certain "degree" doesn't mean it is okay to subjugate women with the burden of having to wear burgas. Your justification just because others do something wrong to a woman, doesn't mean it is okay or should be tolerated. Your example is weak and I understand why. It is wrong to subjugate a woman to anything she doesn't want to do. Where were you raised? In Nowheresville?
I never said it's ok to force a woman to wear anything. In fact, (as I've said repeatedly) I think clothing choices should be up to the individual. You're the one who won't tolerate a topless woman in public. I'm confident of this assessment because you're a conservative religious type. Try to deny it.
My example proves that conservatives in so-called 'backwards' societies aren't much different from the conservatives in our own. It also proves that you, Hiram, have more in common with the islamic fundamentalists than you think.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.