Deviation
Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sam89
Also, the film criticises an ideology, not a person. It would be like a Tory punching you in the face for criticising Conservatism.
And in doing so, it insulted directly a person, which in this case he's been dead for centuries now for a few centuries.
quote:
Was anything in the film slanderous/libellous?
The depiction of the Prophet as a savage killer, hungry for wealth and hellbent on killing kids and women is considered pretty much slanderous for a majority of Muslims. So that would be a yes depending on one's viewpoint, and at least it is downright offensive.
There's also the thing that the filmmaker LIED to the actors into making the film, hence the Cindy Lee Garcia case going on right now.
quote:
Was it designed to cause harm (how can a film cause harm)?
I'd say a bloody yes, it directly wanted to create a reaction into a bunch of savages (who found the perfect excuse to do harm thanks to it wh put it in a "This another case of the West attacking us" bracket) and casualties were caused in the process. So yes.
Oh and...
quote:
Did it support or encourage violence? The clear answer to all three is no. The script consultant for the film said that the filmmaker's motive was "to reach out to the small minority of very dangerous people in California and try to shock them into understanding how dangerous Islam is".
No, but it sure as hell aimed to make a response. It was directly provoking and foolish, nay, not foolish, absolutely moronic. The film was still fighting words. Steve Klein knew this would happen, he still did it, “We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen.”
quote:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god
"What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it."
True for the States, and they do well by keeping that stance, not so true for other countries in Europe where the film would be called hate speech (a thing I'm not particularly fond of btw, I think it should still be said and confronted rather than thrown under the carpet and left to grow).
Oh and I prefer Ed Husain over that science can determine morality, I'm gonna defend torture" twat.
quote:
Ed Husain, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies, US Council on Foreign Relations, and author of The Islamist.
I am a Muslim. I am a Westerner. I see no contradictions in being both.
We reached this stage of our history by ending the control of the Catholic Church on what could and could not be said or written in public. So-called heretics were killed at the stake to help secure freedom of religion, thought, and expression. These freedoms are sacrosanct to me.
It is this history of Christian Protestant bravery that led to the creation of pluralist and secular societies in the West, allowing for the first time in history for Muslims and Jews to settle there in large numbers - we were free to practise our religions freely. The barbarity of pogroms, witch-hunting, and burning heretics ended.
My fellow Muslims must understand this background. We cannot trample on the very freedoms that allow us to thrive as Muslims. Yes, it hurts when the Prophet is insulted. From Shakespeare to Thomas Paine, Western literature is full of negative references to Muslims as Moors, Turks, and followers of Mahomet.
Similarly, classical Arabic and Persian writings are replete with anti-Semitism and denial of Christ's divinity as the son of God. Yet, it is a remarkable feat that we in the West have accommodated all faiths and no faith.
This achievement cannot be reversed. Self-censorship is to reverse the gains made by our intellectual forefathers.
Just as Muslims are free in the West, Christians and other dissenters must be free in the East.
We Muslims killed some of our best luminaries because of clerical accusations of heresy, absence of freedom of thought.
From executing al-Hallaj in Baghdad to stoning Ibn Arabi in Damascus to banishing Bulleh Shah in the Punjab, the history is bitter.
They were Muslim martyrs to freedom of thought. As a Westerner and Muslim, I want to cherish these freedoms and secure liberty for future generations.
This isn't justifying the actions of the protestors who resorted to violence, they're disgusting, repulsive and worthy of every contempt and by far the worst villians here, but the Copt, Sedak, Klein, everyone involved in the film knowing what it was (hence, leaving out the actors that were lied to) are still reprehensible for doing that.
Oh and whoever said some Hindus don't take insult at certain depictions of their culture or idols. Yes they do, OH YES THEY DO. But this is a different discussion.
< Message edited by Deviation -- 24/9/2012 12:35:28 AM >
_____________________________
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.
quote:
ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates
|
Printable Version
Pakistan minister offers bounty - 
Mod Candidate 2013
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread