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.
I should add that I have no real idea at the moment which of the two views of the director’s motives is the more reasonable one, as I know far too little about the Islamic context.
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.
I don't think it's about offence. As Sajid Javid rightly says no one has the right not to be offended. It's about racism and sectarianism which is different.
Different in that censorship is ok where racism and sectarianism is the controversy? I don’t think you can pick and choose the grounds on which you prohibit opinion. Some people see all political views they don’t share as sectarian.
This is just me speaking personally but I don’t see racism and sectarianism as merely “controversial”. I see them as wrong. Objectively so. And I certainly don’t see them as “just another opinion” which has as much validity as any other. We wouldn’t be having this conversation about whether antisemitism is wrong. But is seems some Muslims are an exception in some people’s eyes.
I also see racism as wrong objectively so but you can’t simply assert racism, you have to give clear examples and, even if you can, it doesn’t automatically follow that it should be banned. YouTube still show episodes of Love Thy Neighbour and Till Death Us Do Part.
That’s the problem with censorship- who’s going to be the impartial jury that decides on the motives of the artist? In this case not the demonstrators obviously but who else wants the job given the level of anger?
I reread the article and it strikes me that this is essentially a row between two camps of a particular religion rather than an example of western antipathy to Muslims.
Yes, you’re right. I originally interpreted the protests as a free speech issue but in my view it isn’t. The film is racist and sectarian propaganda by a Shia hate preacher. I therefore think Sunnis deserve the same level of protection from that as we would give to Jewish people from antisemitism. As Harry points out the whole thing is being exploited for political gain by both Shia extremists and the far-right. I think this article provides a really important explanation of what is actually going on.
As for juries, real or hypothetical: the make-up of a jury is always contestable, and should be open to being contested, as should a jury’s verdicts. It’s messy, but more likely to allow for debate from different perspectives than relying on the verdict of a single judge. And messiness is part of the human condition. I’m not convinced that the unyielding pursuit of the principle of freedom of speech) takes account of this complexity.
Objectivity is difficult in situations like this. It is possible, though, to try to investigate the motives which lie behind a film like this. Is the film (or the book, or the cartoon) motivated by the desire to provoke violence and conflict, or is it motivated by a desire to express the truth? Put another way: is it propaganda or art? No definitive answer on motive can ever be possible, but a ‘jury verdict’ based on a review of the evidence can perhaps be aimed for. This article argues that the purpose of the film is to provoke a violent reaction and nourish extremism. If this can be shown ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then I agree that the film should not be shown.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment John. I entirely agree. I think this film is obviously designed to provoke hate and if Cineworld and Vue had known that they wouldn’t have screened it.
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.
No, I don't think I am. No one can or should be able to stop anyone making a film if they have millions of pounds to waste. The issue is with Cineworld and Vue and what possessed them to think that screening a clearly sectarian and racist film was a good idea. I would imagine it's because they didn't have a clue what it was about in which case they need to work on their cultural awareness. Everyone is aware of antisemitic tropes but far fewer people understand that similar things exist in Islam (and other religions as well).
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.
Maybe the Russian analogy doesn't quite work but I don't think yours does either. A film by a firebrand protestant priest which claimed all catholics were evil wouldn't get anywhere near a cinema. And vice versa. Equally, an antisemitic film wouldn't either. I don't see why an anti-Sunni film should be any different.
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.
Thanks Ron 🙏 I completely agree and Harry’s piece made me see the issue in a completely different way. Proper journalism.
Thanks both! Very kind of you.
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 should add that I have no real idea at the moment which of the two views of the director’s motives is the more reasonable one, as I know far too little about the Islamic context.
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.
I don't think it's about offence. As Sajid Javid rightly says no one has the right not to be offended. It's about racism and sectarianism which is different.
Different in that censorship is ok where racism and sectarianism is the controversy? I don’t think you can pick and choose the grounds on which you prohibit opinion. Some people see all political views they don’t share as sectarian.
This is just me speaking personally but I don’t see racism and sectarianism as merely “controversial”. I see them as wrong. Objectively so. And I certainly don’t see them as “just another opinion” which has as much validity as any other. We wouldn’t be having this conversation about whether antisemitism is wrong. But is seems some Muslims are an exception in some people’s eyes.
I also see racism as wrong objectively so but you can’t simply assert racism, you have to give clear examples and, even if you can, it doesn’t automatically follow that it should be banned. YouTube still show episodes of Love Thy Neighbour and Till Death Us Do Part.
That’s the problem with censorship- who’s going to be the impartial jury that decides on the motives of the artist? In this case not the demonstrators obviously but who else wants the job given the level of anger?
I reread the article and it strikes me that this is essentially a row between two camps of a particular religion rather than an example of western antipathy to Muslims.
Yes, you’re right. I originally interpreted the protests as a free speech issue but in my view it isn’t. The film is racist and sectarian propaganda by a Shia hate preacher. I therefore think Sunnis deserve the same level of protection from that as we would give to Jewish people from antisemitism. As Harry points out the whole thing is being exploited for political gain by both Shia extremists and the far-right. I think this article provides a really important explanation of what is actually going on.
As for juries, real or hypothetical: the make-up of a jury is always contestable, and should be open to being contested, as should a jury’s verdicts. It’s messy, but more likely to allow for debate from different perspectives than relying on the verdict of a single judge. And messiness is part of the human condition. I’m not convinced that the unyielding pursuit of the principle of freedom of speech) takes account of this complexity.
Objectivity is difficult in situations like this. It is possible, though, to try to investigate the motives which lie behind a film like this. Is the film (or the book, or the cartoon) motivated by the desire to provoke violence and conflict, or is it motivated by a desire to express the truth? Put another way: is it propaganda or art? No definitive answer on motive can ever be possible, but a ‘jury verdict’ based on a review of the evidence can perhaps be aimed for. This article argues that the purpose of the film is to provoke a violent reaction and nourish extremism. If this can be shown ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then I agree that the film should not be shown.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment John. I entirely agree. I think this film is obviously designed to provoke hate and if Cineworld and Vue had known that they wouldn’t have screened it.
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.
No, I don't think I am. No one can or should be able to stop anyone making a film if they have millions of pounds to waste. The issue is with Cineworld and Vue and what possessed them to think that screening a clearly sectarian and racist film was a good idea. I would imagine it's because they didn't have a clue what it was about in which case they need to work on their cultural awareness. Everyone is aware of antisemitic tropes but far fewer people understand that similar things exist in Islam (and other religions as well).
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.
Maybe the Russian analogy doesn't quite work but I don't think yours does either. A film by a firebrand protestant priest which claimed all catholics were evil wouldn't get anywhere near a cinema. And vice versa. Equally, an antisemitic film wouldn't either. I don't see why an anti-Sunni film should be any different.