Iran trys to get holland to ban dutch mp's film about the "violence provoking koran"
- Thread starter vincent
- Start date
Yes, you did. You have no idea as to the content of the film, you are guessing, and are defining it as you see fit.
What purpose was served by showing semi naked women with Quranic verses on their body ? Did it help a single woman?
That does not answer the question I asked. But to answer your question, I cannot be sure. Perhaps it did by making people aware of how some women are treated. And, as with The Satanic Verses, it helped by making those of us who value free speech aware of the intolerance of religious fanatics apparently in our midst. It certainly helped the fortunes of xenophobes who were now able to say, "See, they are as violent as a pack of wild dogs. I tried to tell you, but you wouldn't listen." People are listening now, and more every time there is an overreaction to a book, film, or cartoon.
So the purpose was xenophobia. That makes sense, actually.
So by showing apparently Muslim women naked, the purpose was to rile Muslim men into getting provoked and it worked. So the purpose was fulfilled.
And they banned the hijab as well, ensuring that many girls would no longer go to school or women to work.
Last edited:
The film didn't do that. The reaction to the film, which made many previously unaware Dutch realize they had violently intolerant reactionary thugs living in their midst, did.
The film aimed at xenophobia. And achieved it.
And the reactions by both the provoked and the Dutch, ensured further xenophobia on both sides.
Will they go back where they came from?SAM said:
Seems like an obvious solution.
The "xenophobia" on the one side is directed against the residents who have created a country they seem to find a desireable place to live. And it is in reaction to being treated as every other resident in this country is treated - to being granted the same privileges and accorded the same respect as other grownups and citizens.SAM said:
Mocking and tearing up or burning something - a cheap copy or theatrical prop representing a cheap copy of something - which is held sacred by one, in a movie studio for a scene in a film they never see, is the same as spitting them in the face, too.arsalan said:
If they're not right in the head.
Generally, adults in Western countries are expected to be able to tell the difference. If they are respected, anyway.
Do the Muslims who want this film preemptively banned realize that any special laws passed to protect their sensibilities from insult will not be signs of respect, but the exact opposite ? That they will be the sorts of special laws employed to protect vulnerable adults from predations and harassments that legally competent people are expected to handle on their own ?
Last edited:
Ok, but that's not what we're talking about here, so your point is moot.
That doesn't sound so bad, what's the big deal? The Quran is only a book, one can buy another later. They're printed every 30 seconds.
It's too bad that some people can't tell the difference between a book and a face.
You're personally biased and religiously motivated opinion has been noted and promptly ignored as irrelevant.
Is that why they banned Mein Kampf?
And clearly, immigrants who are targeted for their religious beliefs are socially vulnerable groups, since this affects not only their assimilation but also their employment and integration into the existing community.
Last edited: