No time to be neutral

No time to be neutral

Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul has staked out a breathtaking position on the controversy and violence surrounding a vile anti-Islamic video. According to the minister, he and the Thai government intend to be neutral.

True to his word, neither he nor any other minister has provided an opinion on the issue. Meanwhile, there have been indignant protests in at least 20 countries, including Thailand, and some have turned violent.

What is unclear and unsettling is just what Mr Surapong and the government are being neutral about. Neutrality denotes a non-judgemental position between two opposing sides or opinions. Mr Surapong has made Thailand the only country which has spoken out but expressed no view of the core cause of the protests in Thai cities, among others.

The root cause of the protests is an odious video clip placed on YouTube. It directly insults Muhammad, the prophet and founder of Islam, and does so in the most offensive manner.

Around the world, leaders, statesmen and influential voices have condemned the video. Mr Surapong has placed himself and Thailand in the odd position of claiming that there may be something worthwhile about this trashy production.

The video was made by a former prison inmate and Egyptian Copt, in the United States. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is protected from legal retaliation by the free-speech laws of the US.

But everyone else also has the right to speak out against the reprehensible film. US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even bought advertising time on seven Pakistan TV networks to air their opinion, that the video was offensive, and had no obvious redeeming value.

All Mr Surapong had to do to put Thailand in the right light around the world was the obvious. He should have condemned this hate video. Since he refused, the prime minister and other influential voices should have.

Thai Muslims deserve some credit for demonstrating their opinion of the video while staying well within legal and moral bounds.

The filmmaker Nakoula inspired and made a hate-speech video, with the obvious goal of creating trouble _ and perhaps even desiring violence and the deaths the video's opponents have lamentably caused. There can be no excuse for creating violence while protesting against the video _ or at any protest that takes advantage of free-speech laws. There also is no reason to refrain from strong criticism of Nakoula and his hate-filled video.

It is often said that the world is a small place. YouTube helps to make it smaller. Cultures including religions are hugely diverse. It is obvious to all but a tiny handful of troublemakers like Nakoula that our very survival depends on tolerance of differing views. One need never abandon his or her views in order to practice cultural sensitivity in the community, in the workplace and on the street.

Mr Surapong was certainly correct to say that "no religion should be disrespected" and to call for tolerance. His error was to fail to condemn the video and its makers for going against these principles. In diversity, there is strength. By failing to call out this trashy video for attempting to foment hatred, Mr Surapong missed a good opportunity to reinforce Thai values and show them to the world.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (12)