In my opinion, that almost entirely depends on context and how much the outsider listens to those within the group about whom they're talking. There have been multiple non-Arabs who have talked about the struggles and issues of Arab ex-Muslims, and while most do it sensibly and listen to those within said group, some just engage in harmful rhetoric and exploit the issues in order to push their own agendas.
First off, thanks for the thoughtful response. I've read through a couple of times before responding.
I think there are a few related issues at play here, and at least some of what I'm saying is informed by the fact that I write as a hobby. Filmmaking isn't really my thing, but I think there are a lot of crossover considerations.
This can be a subjectively 'good' or 'bad' documentary, and that will come down both to whether it entertains (at some level) and whether it is a fair representation of reality which preserves historical record or drives discussion.
However, the pushback on this hasn't been that it's egregiously 'bad'. There are some questions around interviewing people with limited freedom in a repressive country. Whether this particular documentary does that well or not, those considerations will be there anytime this type of exercise is attempted, yet I think it's an important exercise.
Instead, there have been questions around the (admittedly bad) title. Which is a pretty crazy thing to censor based on. There have been quotes around the limited voice provided to Muslim filmmakers. There have been accusations that the inmates are being portrayed as guilty.
These are inmates of Guantanamo Bay, who have been transported back to a Saudi rehab centre. Getting this film out, and eliciting meaningful discussion about people being held without trial, about holding people in detention in areas deliberately outside US legal jurisdiction, about entrusting untried individuals forcibly detained back to the KSA for rehab...
I mean...
Wow. So many issues worth exploring here. Generating any sort of interest in this topic at all...and acknowledging that outsiders can often be free of intrinsic pressures (cultural and political) that insiders are not, this seems like a massive missed opportunity.
The censorship appears to be based on building careers rather than telling stories. And heck, they might very well be successful in that endeavour so...well played, I guess?
But this was an attempt to take the conversation one step beyond 'bad guys with beards locked up for freedom's, and portray them as individuals.
Moving a horrible narrative one step in the right direction is important. Overly idealistic views of what 'should' be said to the level of censorship will have the opposite effect, I believe. I'm a pragmatist at heart.
Sam Harris is a prime example of this when he frequently downplays the extent to which Western interventionism and military aggression have influenced the status quo of the Muslim world and instead talks about Eastern culture as inferior to Western culture, to the point where he once wrote an article making a case for a nuclear first strike against a Muslim nation.
Heh...people often miss how conservative some atheists are politically. It always made me chuckle when Hitchens was decried as a leftie or whatever. His politics were not what people sometimes assumed if they only knew his late-life anti-theism.
Personally I find Harris thought-provoking, in that I commonly entirely disagree with him, but I often need to think through his words in order to do so. But what I'm not doing is advocating for censorship...although direct calls for violence are where I'd largely draw my line.
However, there are no calls for violence in this, not directly anti-Islamic commentary.
(Obviously I haven't seen it, so I'm relying on both the pro and against cases for information, and limiting myself to that which they appear to agree on).
The notion that people detained for suspected terrorism are individuals with motivations and thoughts of their own...and that they maintain their innocence 20 years after being locked up, and without a trial in that time...
Surely this is not something to censor a filmmaker over? This is needed discourse, and if this is clumsy, it can lead to more nuanced discussion.
On the other hand, banning a movie that tackles a real issue and accurately depicts religious extremism in a country seems excessive and counterproductive. Many of the liberals who object to such movies don't even have basic familiarity with Arab and Islamic cultures, and ironically, some of them denounce "white savior tropes" while acting as "white saviors" themselves by assuming that all of us in the Arab and Muslim world will share their views on such movies and speaking on our behalf by demanding such bans.
There's little protection for any Arabs who talk about certain issues in almost all of the Arab world. I absolutely welcome sensible efforts to raise awareness by outsiders; as I said, only a minority of the outsiders I've seen talk about such issues use them as a springboard for harmful agendas.
Good points. I think diversity of opinion being represented is important, and I have empathy for a view that there haven't been enough brown voices heard. Banning white filmmakers from talking about issues outside upstate New York certainly isn't helpful, though.
I do think "cancel culture" and "woke" are overused and often misapplied terms; some people use those terms to dismiss private entities' "cancellation" of genuine hate speech and support for, say, same-sex marriage by "woke" groups who are pro-LGBT. They often make it sound like occasional censorship and ideological bias are exclusive to a certain group when many of those who seem to most often throw these words around are themselves deeply prejudiced and in favor of censorship or authoritarianism when it aligns with their beliefs (e.g., Republicans who endorse abortion bans, book bans, etc.).
When the above terms describe a real problem, there's almost always a better alternative. In this case, I think that alternative would be "excessive reactionism" or "ideological naivety." I lived in Saudi Arabia for 19 years, and I cringe every time I see a Western liberal downplay the extent of the extremism in that country. I see absolutely no way to be liberal or progressive without being opposed to Islamist extremism and ideology.
Yes, I think these are good points, including your points around the use of 'cancel culture' or 'woke'.
I can speak only for myself in saying that I'm a social progressive, and I'm used to generally looking at the right side of politics as by far the more dangerous, for all that I think of myself as a centrist.
But I do think there is a risk that the left become so myopic and certain they are the 'good guys' that they mirror illiberal restrictions, albeit via societal pressure and censure rather than religion and laws.
I kinda wish people would stop seeing themselves as 'the Left' or even 'progressives' and start to think more directly about what they believe in and stand for.
