Singabloodypore

« China will become a procedural democracy | HomePage | Trailer - A Jihad for Love »

06/04/2008

Trailer - A Jihad for Love

Listen to this article

Trackbacks

The URL to Trackback this post is: http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/trackback/1523119

Comments

> what is often missed is that an almost fascist regime controls every aspect of life. <

That's odd. I myself have never missed the fact that S'pore's govt is fascist and controls or seeks to control every aspect of the individual's life.

> Do you think the ban, imposed under the Films Act, is a legitimate use of state power? <

Yes. 100% legitimate use of State Power.

Now, if you asked the question is the legislation of the Films Act a legitimate use of state power, my answer would have been "NO". The point is once you have a LAW in place, it is legitimate for the state to use it.

There should not be a "Films Act". What there ought to be is a constitutionally protected RIGHT to express your ideas non-violently. And this must be ENFORCED and UPHELD by the courts.

> Do you think Singaporeans benefit by keeping ourselves ignorant of the issue and our minds closed? <

Yes. It sure beats thinking and acting for yourself, because if something else is doing the deciding for you, you needn't take responsibility for your life.

Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 07/04/2008

I think the thrust of this post is completely wrong...the Muslim aspect of the film had nothing to do with its refusal of entry into the Film Festival, and the suggest of such is just a further example of the anti-Muslim stirring and anti-Muslim propaganda that is being thrown around as the new rally cry and media catch phrase whenever a sub-culture wants to try and justify the fact its members are racist extremists.

I suggest that using this Muslin platform is not the usual standard of this blog and really misses the true reason for its refusal of entry...for that I suggest the aspects of the film such as "exploring how gay and lesbian" are the true reason behind the film boards decision.

To try and claim a racist stance, or even anti religious stance is just wrong.

Posted by: Indiana | 07/04/2008

So what is wrong with anti-Muslim stirrings? Or any kind of anti-religious stirrings for that matter as a basis for banning films? There should be NO basis for banning any IDEA and the peaceful expression of that idea—say in film, for e.g., regardless of whether that idea "hurts" the feelings of certain individuals. My message to those wimps who need govt to "protect their feelings": Get over it, deal with it. All of us have to in life sooner or later.

The Arsehole Collectivists of the Abrahamamic faiths have never been neither kind, gentle nor understanding to homos and dykes who harm no one with their lifestyles, and it is really no one else's business how they live as long as they remain peaceful.

There are gay Christians who have to struggle against the rest of their stone-casting so-called and supposedly "forgiving" and "tolerant" Chrisitian brothers and sisters, and the biggest bigot of all — The Pope or Papacy who has protected RAPIST priests for CENTURIES.

The idea of arts, film and other festivals which showcase the creativity of individuals is to be open to ANY idea—and allow the individual audience member to experience the manifestation of those ideas and make his OWN MEANING.

If you don't like a particular film, the answer is simple: DON'T WATCH IT. To expect a govt to be the gatekeeper of ideas is ridiculous, and is an insult to every member of the human race.

Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 08/04/2008

The two referneces to 'Muslim' being connected to the reason for the film being banned was in the first instance written by Parvez Sharma the director of the movie.

- "This small nation, where I have many friends, has a small but significant Muslim minority."

The second mentioning of the word 'Muslim is from Alex Au of Yawning Bread.

- "It's a documentary exploring how gay and lesbian Muslims across various countries negotiate their identity and faith, where "jihad" refers to their personal struggle. "

Indiana, are you saying that the word 'muslim' should be removed from the dabate, by all parties?

Posted by: soci | 08/04/2008

I think the word "Muslim" has nothing to do with the refusal of the film, I think the Gay and Lesbian issue is more relevant. Think 377A. So I don't think the idea of religious persecution or speaking of religious oppression is why the film was refused but rather its sexual nature.

And as for Matilah comments, aren't the Govt's of the Middle East insulting everyone of the human race when they speak out and ban the recent Dutch movie. Or for that matter when the Danish papers published those Cartoons, where was the insult and freedom of speech. By your logic the answer to all those who are anti the movie would be a simple, DON'T WATCH IT.

But then that ignores the fact that you can't make jokes about Islam and Muslims, well not in the same way you can attack the Papacy, Christians and Jesus, can you? Society does not accept it, its politically incorrect to attack Islam, but its ok to attack the Jesus Lovers...mmm, where is the equality and the equity in that?

Posted by: Indiana | 08/04/2008

> that ignores the fact that you can't make jokes about Islam and Muslims, well not in the same way you can attack the Papacy, Christians and Jesus, can you? <

I'll "attack" anyone I choose to—for my own selfsih "entertainment". Whether it is a peadophile "prophet" or some arsehole who thinks his martyrdom will negate mankind's "sins".

As far as I'm concerned, they're all FUCKED in the head, and so are their "blind-faith" followers.

Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 08/04/2008

Post a comment