Granny Danger Posted June 12, 2022 Author Share Posted June 12, 2022 Not sure if it’s been posted elsewhere, or if this is the appropriate forum, but certain cinemas are allowing themselves to be pressured not to show the film ‘Lady of Heaven’ by backward thinking god botherers of the Muslim variety. Allowing a small minority of fanatics to censor the showing of a film is pretty poor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 A theme in the film is the Sunni Muslim oppression of Shia Muslims. For Sunni identitarians, perpetual victimhood is a key part of their self-perception. So to be reminded of reality, where Sunnis are indeed the oppressors, that causes uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. Truth hurts. Most of the protestors in England have links to Pakistan, a Sunni supremacist nation where massacres of Shia Muslims are regular. The film being withdrawn by cinemas is the correct decision, for me. If state security can't guarantee the safety of cinema workers then I don't want them being martyred over this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 12, 2022 Author Share Posted June 12, 2022 44 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said: If state security can't guarantee the safety of XXXX then I don't want them being martyred over this. Slippery slope to let fanatics censor anything and everything they want. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 20 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Slippery slope to let fanatics censor anything and everything they want. Of course. My thinking, though, is that it's not fair on cinema workers to be our martyrs for this cause. For them to be the ones potentially facing harm - violence or intimidation - on behalf of us all. It's really up to the state to step in here and guarantee censorship doesn't happen by providing the security those workers need. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 12, 2022 Author Share Posted June 12, 2022 41 minutes ago, FreedomFarter said: Of course. My thinking, though, is that it's not fair on cinema workers to be our martyrs for this cause. For them to be the ones potentially facing harm - violence or intimidation - on behalf of us all. It's really up to the state to step in here and guarantee censorship doesn't happen by providing the security those workers need. I understand your thinking but on the basis that ‘the state’ is not going to do what you want then it’s either capitulation or refusal to capitulate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 Aye, folk can stream the film if they're desperate to watch it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bully Wee Villa Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 (edited) It is, apparently, not very good. Likely more people will see it than would have if not for this controversy, and nobody has been hurt. Hurrah. Edited June 12, 2022 by Bully Wee Villa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2022 Share Posted June 12, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Granny Danger said: I understand your thinking but on the basis that ‘the state’ is not going to do what you want then it’s either capitulation or refusal to capitulate. As we know, companies' sole aim is to make profit and they don't care about the greater good or upholding societal values. Cineworld and Vue have cited worker safety as their reason for pulling this film. Really, it'll have been that they feared the film would generate negative media coverage which could end up being partly directed at them and therefore prove bad for business. If the state does its bit and ensures worker safety with adequate policing of protests and ideally exclusion zones, then that takes away that concern and at that point the spotlight can be fully shone on the companies. Edited June 12, 2022 by FreedomFarter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 For the kind of mindset that results in authors/translators/publishers having their lives threatened in exchange for cash for involvement in a work of fiction and cartoonists being murdered, forcing the withdrawal of a movie is relatively calm. IMO it's still utterly revolting that people who have no association with a supernatural belief system find themselves governed by elements of it under a permanent threat of violence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soapy FFC Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 6 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said: For the kind of mindset that results in authors/translators/publishers having their lives threatened in exchange for cash for involvement in a work of fiction and cartoonists being murdered, forcing the withdrawal of a movie is relatively calm. IMO it's still utterly revolting that people who have no association with a supernatural belief system find themselves governed by elements of it under a permanent threat of violence. That's one one thing that really grinds my gears about a lot of religions, the fact they they expect everyone else to adhere to the rules they live by. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 Very good news for a number of reasons including but not limited to getting it right up Aaron Banks.. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted June 13, 2022 Share Posted June 13, 2022 I find paras 10&17 of the summary in contradiction with each other. I am also a bit surprised at the verdict given para 5, in which the defence was amended and accepted that a statement wasn't true. There's enough in that summary to merit an appeal, unfortunately. In the meantime, I'll enjoy Banks seething. Sounds like it was felt that Banks' evidence was not the most reliable (no comment - don't want sued) and that Cadwalladr wasn't a particularly great witness either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 Tories pumped in 2 bye elections so some mad shit will be announced from Rwanda today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDoddyKane Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 54 minutes ago, doulikefish said: Tories pumped in 2 bye elections so some mad shit will be announced from Rwanda today He will suddenly turn up Kyvi today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 On 13/06/2022 at 10:16, williemillersmoustache said: Very good news for a number of reasons including but not limited to getting it right up Aaron Banks.. I wouldn’t get carried away. She did defame him but, according to the judge, not to a high enough extent. CC is still a rotten journalist as all her ‘Russian’ claims were nonsense. AB is considering an appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 He will suddenly turn up Kyvi todayNews said this morning he is scheduled to be out the country on various "engagements " for over another week. Perfect timing, it's just the fridge all over again only he is hiding in his new best mates.....Rwanda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zern Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 That's Roe v Wade gone, 6-3 decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 Banks been given permission to appeal as judge says he has a fair chance of success against Cadwalladr.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 11 minutes ago, Zern said: That's Roe v Wade gone, 6-3 decision. Horrible shithole of a fucking place. Expect it here soon with the fucking Tories still in power. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawson Park Boy Posted June 24, 2022 Share Posted June 24, 2022 48 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkay said: Horrible shithole of a fucking place. Expect it here soon with the fucking Tories still in power. Nonsense. Will never happen here. Not a great fan of abortion but always has to be a woman’s choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.