thats so anti-semitic its unreal.
Cineworld cancels film about the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad
- Thread starter Devil_forever
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
I mean, it’s obvious he’s a shit-head but I don’t see how his free speech for all shtick is contradicted by that tweet. He’s sharing an opinion he disagrees with and saying why he disagrees. Isn’t that free speech in action?
I think apart from threats recorded on video, I think the staff of Cineworld fears for their safety(well that's what they said) and all the previous incidents would be in the back in their mind if they went ahead and showed in the cinemas.
This thread is a bit different to the Chapelle/ Gervais thread.
So I guess we should cancel culture when hating on trans but not Muslims? Okay.
I’m of the belief that culture should not be cancelled btw. But it’s hilarious watching you islamaphobes.
So I guess we should cancel culture when hating on trans but not Muslims? Okay.
I’m of the belief that culture should not be cancelled btw. But it’s hilarious watching you islamaphobes.
He is suggesting that certain people shouldn't express their free speech right and relocate to a different country. Being secular doesn't mean that religious people don't have a say or the right to share their opinions.
Protesting peacefully out of sight where zero people are inconvenienced is not much of a protest.
I would actually need to understand the legislation better but isn’t the right to protest supposed to be based on a legitimate grievance? I mean, surely I couldn’t picket a KFC store because I think they should serve coke instead of Pepsi? If that’s true then the conversation moves on to what is and isn’t a legitimate grievance.
No he isn’t.
He is saying that certain people who hold a (freely expressed) opinion should relocate if the mindset behind that opinion is incompatible with living in the Uk (the last bit is, obviously, his own opinion)
Nowhere in that tweet does he state (or even imply) that they should be de-platformed or otherwise censored.
I mentioned I wasn't talking about threats or this case specifically. Someone mentioned other movie goers could be prevented from going to the cinema, I mean, that's the point, no? Inconvenience people as much as possible to be noted. I've seen people using the same argument in other threads about people blocking roads, for instance.
A lot of people should be being put on watch lists and rightfully so.
To think it's 2022 and we've still got religious bellends telling us what we can and cant do. feck off.
To think it's 2022 and we've still got religious bellends telling us what we can and cant do. feck off.
I'm not really sure the film is hatefull about muslims. It's supposed to wildly positive about Muhammed, his daughter and his children in general. So I don't know if sunni's are portrayed in a negative light and shia's in the positive tbh.
You can watch the trailer.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13097336/
A portuguese comedian has a clip where he goes with a few friends to the woods at 4 am to protest against the low quality of public transportation in lisbon.
Yeah I don't know about legislation either, but in any case legitimacy could be an issue. What if coke has less calories or additives than pepsi? Could that not be a legitimate health concern? In any case, in your example, you probably wouldn't be able to put together a sufficient number of people to actually cause disruption, you'd be just a crazy guy yelling in front of kfc.
To judge by Yasser al-Habib’s general utterances, it can be assumed to portray Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Aisha negatively. All four are held in the highest regard by Sunni Muslims.
No, however well-meaning, I'm afraid relativism doesn't really work here.
Islamic orthodoxy is not comparable in any way to Christian hardliners.
Take 'Life of Brian', for example. LoB satirizes the life of Christ.
Would there be an Islamic equivalent of that?
Probably. The good guys are supposed to light skinned as well with the baddies all being dark skinned. Judging by the trailer it looks a bit like that. It's still something I feel a movie maker is allowed to do at the end of the day.
Little harsh. Everyone knows that Coke tastes much nicer than Pepsi. I’m sure I could rustle up a posse. Who’s with me?!
That's not relativism, the sentence was about christians and implied that they wouldn't react in the similar fashion which is wrong. They have and stil do.
It's about Brian!
A movie maker is allowed to do that type of things but people are allowed to criticize and protest it. While the rest of us can decide whether we agree with the protesters or not. Now one thing that I believe should be looked at is artistic propaganda, we need to be careful about "artists" using art to vehiculate damaging ideas.
I can't drink either, so I can't help. People who say 7up and sprite are the same should be shot though.
Some really strange posts in this thread (not incl. Gehrman as he’s openly admitted to quite bigoted). But this is what it boils down to:
1) the screenwriter is open and transparent with his hate speech and sectarian rhetoric and is condemned by both Shia and Sunni councils.
2) Imagine Thomas Robb (KKK leader) was writing a movie about the KKK’s version of history? Would the question be about artistic freedom?
3) the film plays into racist tropes with the villain characters being played by black actors.
4) the pre-controversy reviews have all panned the film with reviews saying it’s been poorly acted, narrative is a bit all over the place, wildly inaccurate and deliberately misleading - point being a lot of anger from both sides for what is fundamentally a shit movie.
5) people have a right to protest, (as long as they’re not physically harming people or property), and from the videos I’ve seen in this thread that’s been the case. With any large group of people you’re always going to have a bad egg or two taking it too far.
6) feck Lawrence Fox
1) the screenwriter is open and transparent with his hate speech and sectarian rhetoric and is condemned by both Shia and Sunni councils.
2) Imagine Thomas Robb (KKK leader) was writing a movie about the KKK’s version of history? Would the question be about artistic freedom?
3) the film plays into racist tropes with the villain characters being played by black actors.
4) the pre-controversy reviews have all panned the film with reviews saying it’s been poorly acted, narrative is a bit all over the place, wildly inaccurate and deliberately misleading - point being a lot of anger from both sides for what is fundamentally a shit movie.
5) people have a right to protest, (as long as they’re not physically harming people or property), and from the videos I’ve seen in this thread that’s been the case. With any large group of people you’re always going to have a bad egg or two taking it too far.
6) feck Lawrence Fox
Never admitted to being quite bigoted but thanks for throwing my name in there.
First my post was a general summation of my thoughts on this broad topic that pops up every now and then.
Second, this film was approved for showing in UK. Also, you can't look at this incident in isolation.
I very much doubt there would be much of a reaction had this whole blasphemous cartoons controversy not been a thing the last few decades. That would be very simplistic
Completely bigoted, then?
I've admitted to disliking Islam which probably comes across as bigoted to muslims, but no one would call me a bigot for giving Christianity the same treatment.
We had this conversation a while back in another thread, when you were called Shamana. Happy to be corrected though. Are you an Islamophobe?
As I mentioned the clips of the protestors, though a bit infuriating to see, should be the least of people's worries. These people are generally the minority (one would hope).
It's the larger Muslim population that aren't that crazy looking that start feeling alienated when such things happen.
Also I think there's a difference between "bound to be offended at some point" and stuff purposely written or published to Instigate or prove a point.
We've been over these discussions before but almost every university here in the U.S has classes on Islam from a totally liberal arts perspective. The content by logic of some should be considered "blasphemous" but in reality no one finds it as such since it's a genuine academic discussion.
Unless you've changed your views with your username...
It's a crock term. I dont like Islam. That's enough to get the islamophobe label, but some reason it doesn't apply to all other religions. Sometimes people can't tell the difference between not liking a religion but still liking people of that religion.
You're going on ignore. We've never had a discussion of substance.
It's a very fair response to people who simply want to insult you.
1) he was having a joke with you
2) lovely sense of irony where you’re berating a group of Muslims for protesting after feeling insulted
1) he was having a joke with you
2) lovely sense of irony where you’re berating a group of Muslims for protesting after feeling insulted
I thought about that actually yeah. It's the threats made and Cineworld not airing the movie for fear and safety of their staff that I'm berating in the context of what's happened since the Salman Rushdie affair and onwards. It's not the protests.
What threats have been made?
Cineworld staff could have felt intimidated from a large group protesting outside, hence closing.
But, I’d be interested to know what the actual threat was or see some evidence of a threat being made.
Already posted this earlier. But no, out of all the protesters, I don't know how many % made threats on way or the other.
Not being facetious, what’s the threat? Like the actual tangible threat?
‘Actions will have repercussions’ - maybe the repercussions are more protests? More petitions? More inconvenience?
I’m struggling to make the link between what he’s saying and something more sinister.
"We have been trained from birth that we must defend the honour of our prophet & we will lay our life on the line."
For what? Writing angry letters?