Lay our life on the line - for their beliefs (I’m assuming that’s what is tacitly meant)."lay our life on the line"
For what? Writing angry letters?
Lay our life on the line - for their beliefs (I’m assuming that’s what is tacitly meant).
Again, what’s the specific threat with that phrase?
I’ve been watching ‘Sunderland til I die’ recently, one of the fellas on that said ‘I’d die for this club’. It didn’t make me feel threatened.
It’s the fact that one doesn’t do something sinister without first being that person we see in the clip. Being in that mind is only a small step away from committing a crime.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.
Well it's open to interpretation i guess, but when you consider the recent past its not surprising what people might assume by what he meant. Don't know much about the violent the history of Sunderland fans.
It’s the fact that one doesn’t do something sinister without first being that person we see in the clip. Being in that mind is only a small step away from committing a crime.
The threat is veiled, but it is there nonetheless. To reiterate that actions have consequences is most certainly a threat.
It’s a bit passive aggressive to be sure, but if you can’t see how what he said would cause potential repercussions & cause a business to alter its operating protocol, that’s a bit naive. Seems like forced naïveté.For all intents and purposes, (and in a court of law), a threat is only a threat if a threat is made.
You’re free to infer what you want but the reality is no actual tangible threat has been made. Trying to crowbar something more into a person saying ‘actions have repercussions’ at an actual live protest won’t get you very far.
Did Cineworld pull the showing because of him specifically or because a large group of people amassed outside and were protesting? The latter is intimidating for sure and probably the more likely reason.It’s a bit passive aggressive to be sure, but if you can’t see how what he said would cause potential repercussions & cause a business to alter its operating protocol, that’s a bit naive. Seems like forced naïveté.
It’s the fact that one doesn’t do something sinister without first being that person we see in the clip. Being in that mind is only a small step away from committing a crime.
The threat is veiled, but it is there nonetheless. To reiterate that actions have consequences is most certainly a threat.
But not necessarily a threat of violence. To say that actions have consequences is a statement of fact. There was already a large petition doing the rounds that reached over 120k signatures. There were protests outside cinemas in several major cities. Those are also consequences of said actions.
From my perspective it's the combination of 'actions have consequences', 'there will be repercussions' and 'we will lay our lives on the line for this' that comes across as a threat. You can't examine snippets of his statement in isolation. Dude is willing to die over this issue. Petitions and peaceful protest don't usually result in death.
You can't examine snippets of his statement in isolation
hunger strikes and self immolations are also part of peaceful protests. But when it comes to this particular person I get why people interpret it as a threat.
From my perspective it's the combination of 'actions have consequences', 'there will be repercussions' and 'we will lay our lives on the line for this' that comes across as a threat. You can't examine snippets of his statement in isolation. Dude is willing to die over this issue. Petitions and peaceful protest don't usually result in death.
Lighting yourself on fire doesn't really strike me as a peaceful action, JP. And anyway I said usually. We can also reference the Ohio State protests as a counter example but again, usually.
hunger strikes and self immolations are also part of peaceful protests. But when it comes to this particular person I get why people interpret it as a threat.
It's not peaceful for yourself but it is for others, when we talk about peace we are generally talking about it from the point of the view of society otherwise all protests regardless of the actions isn't peaceful, the protesters aren't at peace with the situation.
Would you honestly not experience any trauma if you watched someone setting themselves alight and burning to death in close proximity to you? Hardly peaceful mate. All I'm saying is there are better examples you could have chosen. Hunger strike is a good one, peaceful, dangerous only to the protester, only sometimes fatal.
Exactly. You’d either have to be very naive or deliberately disingenuous to not interpret his words in the context of numerous prior violent incidents on behalf of the same ideology he is defending when he talks about consequences and putting life on the line.
Would you honestly not experience any trauma if you watched someone setting themselves alight and burning to death in close proximity to you? Hardly peaceful mate. All I'm saying is there are better examples you could have chosen. Hunger strike is a good one, peaceful, dangerous only to the protester, only sometimes fatal.
Exactly. You’d either have to be very naive or deliberately disingenuous to not interpret his words in the context of numerous prior violent incidents on behalf of the same ideology he is defending when he talks about consequences and putting life on the line.
You can be damn sure that he himself is acutely aware of that context.
I don't think that potential trauma from witnesses makes it not peaceful but that's only me.
I've unfortunately witnessed a suicide (someone jumping off a building not self-immolation) and it's not potential trauma, it's tremendously traumatizing. Of all the adjectives I could use to describe that event, peaceful is not one of them. Something like self-immolation )or jumping off a building) is a violent act even if it's only intended to be violent against oneself. It does carry a potential danger to bystanders as well.
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.
That person would sooner commit a crime regarding this movie as opposed to starting an online petition.Did Cineworld pull the showing because of him specifically or because a large group of people amassed outside and were protesting? The latter is intimidating for sure and probably the more likely reason.
On that dude specifically, how do you know he didn’t mean more protests, or petitions?
Who gets to decide though? The history of art is about the norms at the time and the suppression of arts and ideas. I mean for sure you can conjure up lots scenarios where most of us wouldn't approve(like the Corinthian mentioned). But the general emancipation of art also produces the best content. Even though it gets harder and harder most artists want to provocative.
I've unfortunately witnessed a suicide (someone jumping off a building not self-immolation) and it's not potential trauma, it's tremendously traumatizing. Of all the adjectives I could use to describe that event, peaceful is not one of them. Something like self-immolation )or jumping off a building) is a violent act even if it's only intended to be violent against oneself. It does carry a potential danger to bystanders as well.
There’s already a petition that’s been signed by over 125,000 people.That person would sooner commit a crime regarding this movie as opposed to starting an online petition.
Proof? None. Is it an educated guess? Certainly.There’s already a petition that’s been signed by over 125,000 people.
What proof do you have that he’d rather commit a crime?
Proof? None. Is it an educated guess? Certainly.
If I saw this person at a protest saying these things, I would be concerned. Toss the idiocy of religion into the mix, you have a fundamentalist who would probably sooner turn to violent action than measured rancor. They’ve past that point.
But that’s me.
I mean, that’s just lazy stereotyping. Nothing educated about it. It’s also an assertion that has no grounding in reality.Proof? None. Is it an educated guess? Certainly.
If I saw this person at a protest saying these things, I would be concerned. Toss the idiocy of religion into the mix, you have a fundamentalist who would probably sooner turn to violent action than measured rancor. They’ve past that point.
But that’s me.
I’m not saying he isn’t a dick.The screenwriter (also an imam) is the equivalent of a Westboro Baptist Church member to wider Christianity. He’s been banned from most Gulf countries and Iran.
Well, I just think a Shi’ite has as much a right to make a movie about Islamic history as a Sunni does.Yeah that's fair enough, I was just hoping to point out that him being a Shia muslim is an important part of why this is a divisive and provocative film.
Well, yeah… because there’s freedom of speech/religion/expression.Second, this film was approved for showing in UK.
Yeah, not like we haven’t seen issues in the past when Mohammad was depicted in media.I mean, that’s just lazy stereotyping. Nothing educated about it. It’s also an assertion that has no grounding in reality.
Agree - but this isn’t an historically accurate movie. It’s deliberately misleading. We wouldn’t defend the right of the KKK to make a movie where they say that black people had smaller brains 200 years ago, and that black people killed Christ etc. there needs to be some modicum of historical rigour in place. *Well, I just think a Shi’ite has as much a right to make a movie about Islamic history as a Sunni does.
The issue isn’t about the depiction though.Yeah, not like we haven’t seen issues in the past when Mohammad was depicted in media.
I dunno man, if this was a video of an Israeli saying something similar towards a Palestinian….For all intents and purposes, (and in a court of law), a threat is only a threat if a threat is made.
You’re free to infer what you want but the reality is no actual tangible threat has been made. Trying to crowbar something more into a person saying ‘actions have repercussions’ at an actual live protest won’t get you very far.
Agree - but this isn’t an historically accurate movie. It’s deliberately misleading. We wouldn’t defend the right of the KKK to make a movie where they say that black people had smaller brains 200 years ago, and that black people killed Christ etc. there needs to be some modicum of historical rigour in place. *
The most pertinent thing in my mind is that scholars for both Sunnis and Shia (ie orthodox) have condemned the movie for being so wilfully provocative and misleading. That to me says a lot.
* not being offensive here but trying to illustrate a point.
It literally says such in the article in the OP. Have I missed something in the last five pages?The issue isn’t about the depiction though.
The issue isn’t about the depiction though.
Well, I just think a Shi’ite has as much a right to make a movie about Islamic history as a Sunni does.
It literally says such in the article in the OP. Have I missed something in the last five pages?
The main issue is the how characters such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Aisha are shown, and their personalities. These four figures are held in the highest esteem (along with others) in Sunni Islam. They’re shown as villains of the piece and are all played by black actors (another example of the historical inaccuracy as they’re all from the same Arab tribe as the ‘goodies’ who are played by white actors).The guy making threats into video was specifically mentioning defending the honour of the prophet. But anyways considering that not even south park had the balls to feature muhammed(in the episode with him in a Teddy bear suit). I think having even a cgi Muhammed in a film is at least a major part of controversy.
