Non-Satirical Update on Anatomy of a Face in Fitna about Geert Wilders using likeness of Dutch-Moroccan rapper Salah Edin in the film raises issue of whether Edin owns copyright on hatred.

Non-Satirical Update on Anatomy of a Face in Fitna about Geert Wilders using likeness of Dutch-Moroccan rapper Salah Edin in the film raises issue of whether Edin owns copyright on hatred.·

By Jim Wrenn,
Editor and Washington Bureau Drawer Chief at PoliSat.Com.
March 29, 2008--

A March 29, 2008 news article pertinent to issues explored in the video "Anatomy of a Face in Fitna" posted by PoliSat.Com on March 28, 2008 about Geert Wilders' film "Fitna" brings to light information not widely known in the West generally (and not known by PoliSat.Com in making that video on March 27 and 28, 2008). PoliSat.Com's "Anatomy of a Face in Fitna" focuses on what then seemed to PoliSat.Com (and others) to have been Wilders' mistaken adaptation of an image of the Dutch-Moroccan rapper, Salah Edin, rather than an image of Mohammmed Bouyeri, in frames of "Fitna" depicting the murderer of Theo Van Gogh. For context about such information, read the excerpts quoted below from the March 29, 2008, news article (bold/italics added by PoliSat.Com):

Amsterdam-- Dutch-Moroccan rapper Salah Edin has demanded that opposition legislator Geert Wilders remove his photo from Wilders' controversial anti-Islam film posted on the internet. If Wilders fails to remove Edin's picture, the rapper will take legal steps, he told the Dutch media on Saturday. Edin made his name among young Dutch Moroccans with his 2007 rap album, the cover of which carries a photo of Edin make to look like Mohammmed Bouyeri, the convicted assassin of late Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh. Edin has continued to appear as the Muslim assassin's lookalike ever since. Fitna, Wilders' controversial 16-minute film about the alleged Islamization of the Netherlands, uses Edin's lookalike photo from the cover of his rap album and not an original Bouyeri photo when referring to Van Gogh's assassin. Initially, Edin said he was "extremely offended" by the fact that his photo appeared in Fitna, and that it would harm his reputation to be confused with a convicted terrorist. But meanwhile Edin has adjusted his complaints and says he is primarily unhappy with the fact his picture was used without paying him copyright. Wilders also faces legal action from Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard over the use of his famous caricature of the Prophet Mohammed in Fitna. The Dutch journalists' union NVJ has demanded that Wilders remove Westergaard's famous cartoon from the film. Rapper Edin's album, entitled The Biggest Dutch Nightmare, contains strong language and is extremely negative if not discriminatory about Dutch society and women. In May 2007, Edin was quoted in Dutch daily newspaper DAG about the Holocaust as saying: "I am not sure if there were really 6 million (Jews killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust). I question that." (Bold-Italics added.) [Standard URL link to this article] [Print-Article URL link].

To best understand the relevance of that information, one must indulge a series of suppositions: Suppose in America in the wake of the conviction of James Earl Ray for the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. there were to have been a KKK-sympathizing musician who made himself "prominent" with a musical album bearing a cover showing his face in a manner and pose intended to resemble the murderer James Earl Ray as well as to tacitly convey support to the kind of bigotry and hatred the murder of King exemplified. Suppose further that the musical lyrics in the album expressed tacit, if not overt, support for the bigoted, hateful views harbored by people such as James Earl Ray. Suppose even further that the KKK-sympathizing musician continued to commercially and politically exploit his appearance as a "look-a-like' for James Earl Ray. Suppose further that a movie director/producer were to have thereafter made a film not only about the kind of hatred and barbarism exemplified by the KKK and Ray but also about (a) the cowardly passivity of normal people and the media and cultural "icons" towards such fanaticism and (b) the willingness of some "artists" to glorify such fanatics and/or excuse their barbarities as though they were victims of oppression or discrimination. Who would find it surprising that such director might use the face of the self-styled "look-a-like" for James Earl Ray instead of the face of Ray in depicting the "murderer" of King? Wouldn't most of Hollywood today consider that to be a proper example of "artistic license" given the self-selecting nature of the musician's "look-a-like" career strategy? Wouldn't Hollywood today be eager to nominate such director for an Academy Award? (Indeed, wouldn't that represent one of the now-rare instances of good sense in Hollywood today?)

Suppose such musician were to then file suit against such director for "copyright" violation and/or defamation. How many courts would find such claims meritorious? To paraphrase Mr. Rogers, "Can you say 'None'"? Indeed, non-profit foundations on the right and left providing free legal representation on first-amendment issues would (rightly) spring to the director's defense. America's entertainment industry would fete the director.

Oprah would hug him. The ladies on The View would adore him. The so-called "mainstream" media would cover the controversy in a manner overtly sympathetic to him. United Nations leaders would laud him. The Daily Kos would worship him as would MoveOn. Even Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Jane Fonda and Sharon Stone would express their adulation for the director's "courage." Rush Limbaugh would laud him as would Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin and the crew at HotAir. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and even Ralph Nader would make a joint campaign commercial expressing their non-partisan agreement on lauding the director. This would present a rare moment of political harmony among the American Left, Center and Right. Light would come down from Heaven and even shine on Secular Fundamentalists. Who knows, Hugo Chavez and Raul and Fidel Castro would laud him. Maybe even Ed Asner and Mike Farrell. Surely Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover and most definitely the Reverend Mr. Wright (not to be confused with the Reverend Mr. Black popularized by the Kingston Trio in the 1960's).

Now, back to Wilders and Edin. Given the apparently undisputed facts of Salah Edin having promoted his "musical" career as a "look-a-like' for the murderer of Van Gogh and as an apologist for, if not a glorifier of, the kind of Islamic fanatics exemplified by, and sympathetically supporting, terrorists such as Van Gogh's murder, any sensible court of law would dismiss any "copyright" claim or any other claim by Edin against Wilders as patently frivolous. Thus, although I initially assumed Wilders' apparent use of a modified image of Edin in the frames depicting Van Gogh's murder was an example of either incompetence or stupidity, now that I know what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story," I think Wilders' use of Edin's image in this fashion was brilliant. Will anyone on the Hollywood Left or even among the rest of the liberal poseurs in America agree with that? Don't hold your breath. Only "NeoCons" will will have the "audacity" to express the "hope" that Wilders' film has the effect of waking up at least some who are asleep in the West.

Fitna on Google Video (embedded viewing above)

Link for direct viewing, click here. Note--

If Google Video were to hereafter remove Fitna,

go to the Jawa Report to find other sources

for viewing/embedding it.

Therefore, it's sensible to also include in this installment an embedded version of Fitna (see video box to the left) now playing on Google video. Thus far, Google has shown courage for quite a few more hours than did LiveLeak. However, given Google's long-lasting love-affair with political correctness as well as its willingness to kowtow to the Peoples' Republic of China, one's optimism on this issue must be guarded. If Google were to continue hosting the video indefinitely, I would be first in line to extend "kudos" to Google (even though Google's own YouTube has capitulated to what appear to me to have been demands by nutroots on the left to ban several of PoliSat.Com's anti-Left videos on political grounds-- more on this to be provided in an update.)