Excellent Piece - I can't understand why this film was being shown in the first place -certainly not for commercial reasons I would have thought.You have done a service in shining some light on the background of the controvesy.
On the issue of expressions of sectarian values, I wonder if the parade season in Northern Ireland is a useful analogy. The parades can be seen as both an attempt to assert dominance and power by one community over another, but also as an expression of that community’s identity. The parades go ahead, but the authorities seek to regulate them to avoid the most dangerous flashpoints along the route. So freedom of expression is allowed, although offensive to other groups, but in a manner that the authorities hope will not incite violence. Of course, there is heated debate each year about the parades and their routes, but a compromise is sought between the right to free expression and the right to be protected from intimidation.
Another live debate is over the issue of gambling advertising. Gambling companies have a great deal of financial power. Is it legitimate to allow them to use that power to commission highly persuasive advertisements that can be disseminated in an unregulated way?
But I’m still not convinced that the right to freedom of speech is an absolute. Context is important, and in an open society, surely it is right to debate, in the courts if necessary, whether a particular assertion of the right to free speech is justifiable. In a particular context, the words by a particular speaker may be judged as an incitement to violence, or even insurrection. A society, through its legal processes, must surely have the right to protect itself and its citizens from such words. Those same words, though, in a different context may be judged to be spoken as part of legitimate political or religious debate. I have in mind here the words Donald Trump spoke in his speech prior to the attack on the Capitol and his words since when their impact does not have the possibility of having such an immediate incendiary effect.
This article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is certainly powerful and thought-provoking, especially given her disturbing personal experience of the issue. It certainly puts the motive behind the film in a different light. Thanks for sharing.
The Russian analogy is ridiculous! As Russia is the clear aggressor and we support Ukraine in what is clearly a war then of course a pro Russian film wouldn’t get anywhere near a cinema. We aren’t at war with either Sunnis or Shias (although some say we are). If both countries were at peace I wouldn’t see a problem in a propaganda film that highlights the attributes of one society over another and points out the failings of the other.
As for the Shia film being racist; I have no idea if that’s the case but I would like to see the film so I can come to my own conclusions about that rather than take the word of someone who may simply get easily offended!
And wasn’t The Devils by Ken Russell in exactly the same territory of religious hysteria and violence that you postulate? It was made and no doubt offended many people but it wasn’t banned.
But you are confusing the issue of principle involved in saying the film shouldn’t have been made because it offends people and whether the commercial decisions about what films get made are good or bad decisions.
I don’t think the analogy with Russia and Ukraine stands up. It’s more like devoted monarchists protesting against a film celebrating the life of Oliver Cromwell.
The point is once you assert that something offends you enough to prevent it being seen or read or heard you cannot claim to be in favour of freedom of speech.
Excellent Piece - I can't understand why this film was being shown in the first place -certainly not for commercial reasons I would have thought.You have done a service in shining some light on the background of the controvesy.
An alternate view.
https://unherd.com/2022/06/the-new-war-on-islamism/?fbclid=IwAR1Tv05Q07o0wBt3AEV_WI9DEghxTHhEJgnvgnnbZ4IVm7AFfxeZbWludGw
Interesting article from today’s Guardian on London’s Royal Court’s approach to controversial religious issues: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/jun/13/the-royal-court-vicky-featherstone-fail-better-jews-in-their-own-words
On the issue of expressions of sectarian values, I wonder if the parade season in Northern Ireland is a useful analogy. The parades can be seen as both an attempt to assert dominance and power by one community over another, but also as an expression of that community’s identity. The parades go ahead, but the authorities seek to regulate them to avoid the most dangerous flashpoints along the route. So freedom of expression is allowed, although offensive to other groups, but in a manner that the authorities hope will not incite violence. Of course, there is heated debate each year about the parades and their routes, but a compromise is sought between the right to free expression and the right to be protected from intimidation.
Another live debate is over the issue of gambling advertising. Gambling companies have a great deal of financial power. Is it legitimate to allow them to use that power to commission highly persuasive advertisements that can be disseminated in an unregulated way?
But I’m still not convinced that the right to freedom of speech is an absolute. Context is important, and in an open society, surely it is right to debate, in the courts if necessary, whether a particular assertion of the right to free speech is justifiable. In a particular context, the words by a particular speaker may be judged as an incitement to violence, or even insurrection. A society, through its legal processes, must surely have the right to protect itself and its citizens from such words. Those same words, though, in a different context may be judged to be spoken as part of legitimate political or religious debate. I have in mind here the words Donald Trump spoke in his speech prior to the attack on the Capitol and his words since when their impact does not have the possibility of having such an immediate incendiary effect.
This article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is certainly powerful and thought-provoking, especially given her disturbing personal experience of the issue. It certainly puts the motive behind the film in a different light. Thanks for sharing.
I forgot to ask; maybe Dan could explain what’s racist about the film as I assume he’s seen it? Can he give some examples from the film?
The Russian analogy is ridiculous! As Russia is the clear aggressor and we support Ukraine in what is clearly a war then of course a pro Russian film wouldn’t get anywhere near a cinema. We aren’t at war with either Sunnis or Shias (although some say we are). If both countries were at peace I wouldn’t see a problem in a propaganda film that highlights the attributes of one society over another and points out the failings of the other.
As for the Shia film being racist; I have no idea if that’s the case but I would like to see the film so I can come to my own conclusions about that rather than take the word of someone who may simply get easily offended!
And wasn’t The Devils by Ken Russell in exactly the same territory of religious hysteria and violence that you postulate? It was made and no doubt offended many people but it wasn’t banned.
But you are confusing the issue of principle involved in saying the film shouldn’t have been made because it offends people and whether the commercial decisions about what films get made are good or bad decisions.
I don’t think the analogy with Russia and Ukraine stands up. It’s more like devoted monarchists protesting against a film celebrating the life of Oliver Cromwell.
The point is once you assert that something offends you enough to prevent it being seen or read or heard you cannot claim to be in favour of freedom of speech.