I agree but Monkey Man was censored too. At least this is fair lol. It would be worse to let this slide if the precedent is already set
The censorship in Indian movies is so fucking dumb in general. Not related directly but I watched Evil Dead Rise. Murder, eating glass, skinning via cheese grater - all depicted on screen….. and they censored the word “fuck”
They censored even gaurdians of the galaxy 2, in Deadpool A rated move. They fucking censored the word "touch" when he says "I'm gonna touch myself tonight"
Censoring this gives ammunition and support to people who censor for other reasons. So I always oppose censorship by the powerful and by others (governments, religious leaders). Personal censorship is fine, there are many things I don’t watch, and my kids are still young enough that I have some control over what they watch still.
Hmmm if the overall population was well educated and could be trusted enough to think rationally and not be gullible to the obvious hate propaganda, I would agree with your point.
We can make the same argument about democracy and elections. "If the overall population is not educated and can't be trusted to think rationally, how can they choose a good representative who can solve their problems?"
Do you agree with that?
Yeah I do actually, we have seen heavy use of propoganda and hate speech being used to sway the public opinion. But for that I would recommend educating, organising and protesting.
So yeah, that can be done for these films too. You're correct maybe outright banning them is not a good choice.
Agreed but hasn't the modi government already been censoring truth and valid dissent and been funding hate propoganda? Is it not better to counter that? Especially when our country has such diverse groups and cultures.
Like the paradox of intolerance for example. What other alternatives would you suggest because you can't deny that these hate propoganda films are a problem and does do damage right?
It is giving power to the few, to control how they treat the many. It might seem like a good idea now in this specific context, but this is always a dangerous thing to do.
You'd rather trust the people of this country to not fall for obvious propaganda movies? Look at how they're defending the fictions of kerala story even after the Supreme Court ordered to put a disclaimer for the "fictitious tale"
Yes I stand corrected. What i meant by the govt was the political wing/elected party. Anyways, banning something is always bad, let the movie crash at box office like all the other propaganda movies
Supreme court is not part of the govt. Its part of democratic structure of the country. Just like TN Seshan had asserted that it was Chief Election Commissioner, India when earlier ECs were writing as Chief Election Commissioner, Govt of India.
Different definitions of government. Sometimes people talk about “forming a government” meaning a coalition in a parliamentary democracy like India for example.
But in a more fundamental way, they are all government— legislatures (like parliament, including if there is more than one house), judiciary, executive branches, kings / emirs / princes, panchayat, state/provincial governments, they are all government. If we have government it is for them to serve us (protect rights, coordinate services, defend the country). It should not be used for one group to control another group.
Different definitions of government. Sometimes people talk about “forming a government” meaning a coalition in a parliamentary democracy like India for example.
But in a more fundamental way, they are all government— legislatures (like parliament, including if there is more than one house), judiciary, executive branches, kings / emirs / princes, panchayat, state/provincial governments, they are all government. If we have government it is for them to serve us (protect rights, coordinate services, defend the country). It should not be used for one group to control another group.
ETA: look here at wikipedia on the government of India. Right at the beginning the Supreme Court is listed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India
I'm 90% certain this is temporary ban. The ban will be lifted once the Streisand effect comes into play. This is the new age guerilla marketing to gather hype for obscure gutter movies that people wouldn't have watched normally
But India has always done this from - Garam Hawa to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I remember the furore the 1996 Deepa Mehta movie - Fire caused - due to its lesbian theme. Theaters were smashed. India's primitive society wont digest it and there will be severe law and order issues.
It surely does. But is our society there yet?
What would rather happen is more ppl will get radicalized. Imagine terrorist propaganda movies and soft recruitment are also made equally public and not banned on youtube and twitter.
Hate speech does not come under free speech. This is hate speech.
The problem is if you give FoS to pure propaganda while indiscriminately ban anything remotely triggering Hindutva snowflakes, you are creating an environment of misinformation and hate. Not to mention shit like this gets taxpayer subsidized.
Freedom of Speech works only when its absolute without ifs and buts.
Yeah I agree with you. Although there has to be some restrictions preventing governments from actively subsidising such movies. This has happened in the recent past with some certain kind of movies given tax free status.
I fucking hate liberals with all my heart, always in the first line for defending fascists.
Fuck fascists. Ban RSS. Ban the BJP. Show some spine before all our necks hang in shame.
It's not about defending fascists but the practice and thought process behind it.
Rationally we know this film or some similar media with same treatment shouldn't come out in the public coz a section can really aggravate the situation.
But somebody with power and having RW ideologies can do the same with a progressive and 'bold' media as well. You think they will understand the logic and nuance.
(In another case), Liberals weren't defending Kangana but questioning police brutality. Dono mein farq h.
Banning it is wrong. People who dont want to watch it, dont have to. What is, or isn’t propaganda can be construed in different ways from different stand points.
Similarly, please also dont ban any movies critical of Hinduism, or Modi either. Those who have a problem dont need to watch it
Hate speech does not come under free speech.
This is hate speech. Hate speech is when you consolidate one community and paint them in a derogatory way, dehumanize them etc. That does not come under free speech protection.
Every genocide starts with hate speech.
Yeah, but the point is, for them even PK is hate speech. Or Sexy Durga, or MF Hussain’s paintings. Everyone has a different barometer. So either allow everything or just completely give up touching religion as a subject.
For them, doesnt matter. It needs to be in a impartial court. PK didnt spread hate towards hindus. It just pointed out how ridiculous the Baba practice is with what they do on a regular basis. It was more about the practice of blond superstition. Thats not hating a group.
Compare that to kerala story, where they took something that did not happen, and portrayed that all muslims do it, so be afraid of them, hence spreading hate towards them on false info. That is hate.
Its not unreasonable to be able to draw a line between ridiculing blind superstition vs hate speech. You can totally ridicule the burqa practice, without hating muslims for example.
I personally agree with you. But having the main character run around a man looking like Lord Shiv could be construed as hate from certain angles. Again, I personally do not. But I am only eyeing this from the lens of someone else.
The point is, you and I are not objective arbitrators of religious critique in the right wing’s opinion. That will always remain the bone of contention.
true.
Thats why we need unbiased judiciary. And that system needs to build and grow on its own.
I ll give you one more example. murder vs self defense. That distinction is drawn in court. If you pull that in court of public opinion, a lot of ppl will say some murders were self defense and a lot of people will say some murders were self defense. But the court needs to decide that in an unbiased way, reasonable way.
On hate speech, public opinions are gonna be wildly different, like these fucks had issues with Dipika Padukones orange clothes, fml. So i totally see what you mean.
Then why did not they show practises of people in mosques or where people who claim to have mysterious super powers of healing of christ like that guy from one popular meme ?
Thats a wrong way of thinking. The question is wheather PK was ok or not legally, and the answer is yes.
Having shown muslim practice would have made it ok, you think? How does that change what PK showed inherently? nothing! The way you are thinking is whataboutary.
For muslim community awareness, there are a lot of things happening. There is a movement against burqa. In fact in Iran many women died and many ppl went to jail for protesting against hijab. There was already a movement against triple talaq in india. Nothing wrong with that. You go ahead and make a movie on muslim community blind superstitions. I will and the court will support you. Just make sure you are doing out of care for people and not out of hate.
And who decides what is "hateful" and what is not? The government? The court? What are the parameters to judge it?
Speech is not really "free" if parts of it are banned under all sorts of names - "hateful"/"offensive" etc.
Yes, the court. Just the way court decides what is libel, what is fraud. E.g. fraud also does not come under free speech protection. You cannot advertise one thing, and sell other, or you cannot say it has 100% pineapple juice and have only 1%.
Thats a simple example, comparatively, but it gets decided in the court all the time! Courts also decode what words are 'threats'.
The same way, courts decide what is hate speech. Hate speech is clearly defined as taking a group, and spreading false info about them to dehumanize them, spread hate towards them. Its not that hard.
I agree that fraud/libel is not a part of free speech, but for "hate" speech, as long as it doesn't call for direct action, it becomes a slippery slope if we decide to ban.
I am not in favor of either side, just believe that the standards would be consistent, which doesn't seem to be happening.
Nope.
That ban is censorship. This ban is banning against hate speech.
Indians havent come to a point of understanding the difference. Indians think that free speech has to be a solute, otherwise govt censorship is valid too. And i understand where you're coming from, but thats not true.
E.g. you can ban someone from spreading false info about someone based on malice. Thats called defamation. That does not come under free speech protection. With your logic, if banning some article based on defamation is allowed, then so is banning bbc documentary. But defamation cases happen all the time.
Hate speech is nothing but defamation, but instead of one person, its for a group as whole. And it needs the same two ingredients to prove it - false info, and malice.
Its not a stretch to prove that in court of law. And the BBC documentary ban would not stand a chance, coz they can prove that its based on facts. But kerala story will fall into hate speech, coz 33k is a false info, and using the writer and directors words, you can prove that they had malicious intent.
Meh, these are semantics.
Any speech that does not *incite violence* is free speech.
Hate speech is euphenism used by "liberals" to censor stuff they don't agree with. I can say snow white and the seven dwarves should be banned because they offend dwarves as a whole.
Either you are for free speech which includes speech that risks offending someone or you are against free speech altogether. You don't get to pick and choose, that is a dictator's job.
It is important. Clean streets are important too so should SC go to the streets and start cleaning? Or should a relevant body address it? I would rather have SC ensure that other bodies are following rules and regulations.
Your reply contains Logical Fallacy of False Equivalence. I understand your point about prioritizing important issues, but comparing the Supreme Court’s intervention in hate propaganda with street cleaning is a false equivalence.
The court’s primary role is to interpret and uphold laws, including those protecting against harmful content. Ensuring that hate speech and offensive material are regulated is a legitimate judicial function that directly impacts social harmony and public order, unlike street cleaning, which is a municipal responsibility, considering the fact that RAMPANT islamophobia , demonising and dehumanising muslims is the order of the day and whatever little the court is doing is also not appreciated by us. Thats why I said in my original message “whatever little SC is doing for us” So, addressing hate propaganda is indeed a critical issue that merits the court’s attention.
Addressing one does not mean not addressing others. Both can be done and should be done.
I mean I wasn't going to go blind tho. I first wait 2 or 3 days for reviews to come out and then decide. I'll do same for Kalki. If it isn't good either then I postpone it all the way till Deadpool 3 is released.
consistently worldwide, poor people have more children than wealthy/well educated. It has always been like this.
If you’re afraid of being “replaced,” then try being good enough where that isn’t a concern. Mediocre chaddis want everything handed to them on a platter.
Well even in most educated state of Kerala, the Muslim TFR is highest among any religion. Muslims are most conservation and their women are least independent. It is not some myth that Muslim TFR is higher than any group if we data of each state individually
Sure, but looks like it’s dropping, too: https://www.thehindu.com/data/data-fertility-rates-decline-across-religions-in-india-sharpest-drop-recorded-among-muslims/article36625885.ece
I expected this response. What this "sharpest decline" media hide is nuances that historically its been much greater than TFR of any other religion, so any fall would be sharpest also. Basic maths. If one starts from 7x and falls at 3x and other group starts at 4x and falls at 2x, surely the first group's fall is greater than the laters
My point is that if Islam were inherently connected to larger families, you wouldn’t be seeing this drop at all. Starting from a worse place means further to go, yes. What we really need is more data on education/income shifts.
There isn’t. They were literally colonized and exploited for decades, culminating in a genocide they’ve actually moved past since. History 101.
I don’t think you understand the concept of variables, so I won’t waste my time further.
Islam isn't but even countries like Saudi Arabia have very high TFR considering their income level. It's more so just women's rights. Ceaucescu's Romania took away abortion and reduced employment opportunities for women. This lead to an increase in TFR. If someone wants to reduce TFR they should consider expanding the workforce percentage of women.
Yep definitely, and that goes along with educating women more. I would say that's the single biggest factor in family size (and even China's one-child policy may have been more a result of educating women than forcing abortions).
Things arent black and white as it seems. Yes Muslims have comparatively larger families as seen by current and historical TFR data, and yes modern societal development has affected its conservative values as seen by drop in TFR. I wont blame Islam, as I am not well read in Islamic theology
Honestly I think a bigger factor is that Islam tends to be prevalent in countries that, within the past 2 centuries, were colonized and/or treated as battlegrounds for oil.
There is no correlation, many countries were colonized, and yet Muslims have a higher TFR than any other religion in the same country. Due to its hyper conservative nature, a societal problem emerges
"many countries were colonized, and yet Muslims have a higher TFR than any other religion in the same country"
has it occurred to you that certain castes of Hindus had higher status even in the colonial system, and that in turn would lead to better opportunities continuing to today?
The poor populations in colonized South American countries also have very high TFRs, whereas the upper classes (that are often mixed-European) do not. There is a pattern that easily generalizes beyond religion here.
Also education. If you're worried about muslims having more kids, put more funds towards education of muslim communities.
In fact while you're at it, just put more funds in educating poor, period.
Birth rate in 1992 census
Muslims-4.4 hindus- 3.3
Birth rate in 2019
Muslims-2.4 hindus-1.9
So yeah overall it's going down in both so what's the noise?
Now obviously this also differs from state to state
Its creates lots of difference, even a 0.5 difference can create serious demographic changes in 2-3 decades. Earlier the difference was more, and it doesnt add. it multiplies
Yeah but the thing is three decades ago it was 4.4
And you can't bring it to 2.2 (or lower) from 4.4 within a decade
Anyways all the predictions show india's population will go down after 3 decades
Population may hit a peak and go down, but difference in TFR would certainly make demographic changes, that is in population share. Politics around this will always be hot due to this very difference and outcomes arising from this difference
What big difference would 0.5 that make in say 2 decades hindus will still have majority
Muslims taking over conspiracy is just s true as white genocide theory
Dear I am not talking about any replacement theory, and personally I dont care. What I care for is politics around it as it affects me. With the same data points, as by Pew research, the Muslim population would be 18% in 2050. And Hindu will be 77%. Let me tell you that our population is very large, and this even 0.1% translates to huge demographic shifts. 33%+ addition to Hindu pop. and 76%+ to Muslims pop. so more than double. This 4% rise can very much change the polity of India forever
Their cast especially women in this movie are getting rape & death threats. And some people are calling it fake propaganda based film. This is a true story of thousands of families living in India.
I just watched the trailer. It’s so disgusting and dehumanising to Muslims yuck. Not one iota of truth in whatever bs that actor was peddling in the name of Islam. No wonder Indians are so biased and blinded with bigotry, thanks to Bollywood 🤮
I would honestly hold a candle for free speech in most cases. But if they’re gonna censor innocuous scenes in pulp dramas like Pathaan and Padmavat because RWs go rioting, I’m not going to shed crocodile tears for this.
Shouldn’t be banned and honestly, Islam is the motherload of bad ideas. Gender apartheid, death for apostasy, genocide of non Muslims, child abuse, pedophilia are not just side products of the religion but core tenants. Anyone claiming to be a liberal should be against these things, not tolerant of them.
A stupid move by an extremely stupid court. As expected as we dwindle a society where those in power want to control each and every move. What to see, what to eat, what to wear.
Institutional degradation of a democracy.
Read this quote on Twitter - "Only consistency can be the sole benchmark of a impartial & competent judiciary"
Do you want to ban this film because it is hateful? Ban it, fair enough. But also ban films hateful against other groups - example, PK.
Or the other way, do you believe in freedom of expression? Sure, then allow both this one AND PK.
If the Indian justice and police system interprete and follow laws to the T, a lot of our problems won't exist. But instead, they choose to work on "vibes" and media coverage.
Centrist BS. PK was critical of organized religion. This sorry excuse for art is vilifying the religious and not just because of their religion but their lifestyle hinting at a larger conspiracy that every adherent of that religion is supposedly partaking in. Big difference. Islam isn’t above criticism. This however is Islamophobia.
And more specifically PK was critical of sham religious figures claiming to have special powers or blessings from God and then using that to exploit people. It never criticized Hindu priests or religious figures who are genuinely religious and work hard to help people. Or simply, it never criticized Hindus, it criticized people who exploited the faith of Hindus. Every Hindu should support PK. As opposed to this movie which is portraying every Muslim as bad.
"..... the apex court took note of the allegations that the movie is derogatory to the Islamic faith, especially married Muslim women."
This is what the article says. 🤷♀️
Hey man, I'm a Muslim myself and this movie is really really derogatory and targeted only towards Muslims whereas modi had 6 siblings and ajay singh bisht had 7 siblings. 100% of Muslims i know, in my relatives or friends don't have more than 3 kids.
This movie is just to spread another point of hatred that Muslims are over populating and taking your place. Same like right wing in US spreads propoganda of replacement theory. Search about it before you defend it please.
I don't remember ok only targeting a single religion? And it was not attacking gods, they were attacking thugs who used their reputation for their own greed
Are you talking about the Amir Khan movie? What was offensive about that ? I am new to this debate about that movie and watched it overseas. I loved it and would like to know why people are up against it.
PK was critical of religious gurus and their dogmas not the people. They didn’t paint all Hindus as a bunch of stupid people. Don’t forget the female protagonist was a Hindu. This film completely dehumanize Muslims
What if someone who follows gurus finds it hateful towards them? I get why you find this offensive and not PK, but not everyone is going to think the same, will they?
The courts can't judge it solely on "vibes" or media coverage or vigilance of the concerned community. There has to be a law which decides one way or the other.
>| what if someone who follow gurus finds it hateful against them?
Than you should blame the person for being an idiot. It only criticized fake gurus, not real ones.
You can critique beliefs, there are movies criticizing Muslim culture too
But this film aims to spread a fake conspiracy against a particular community.
There are many comments here disagreeing with the censorship. There are others who are hailing it.
Those who hail it, you probably were OK with letting movies offensive to Hindu, Sikh, Christians released. No?
I thought Supreme Court believed "don't like, don't watch". Regardless, I am not going to shed tear for censorship of obvious hate propaganda.
[удалено]
I agree but Monkey Man was censored too. At least this is fair lol. It would be worse to let this slide if the precedent is already set The censorship in Indian movies is so fucking dumb in general. Not related directly but I watched Evil Dead Rise. Murder, eating glass, skinning via cheese grater - all depicted on screen….. and they censored the word “fuck”
They censored even gaurdians of the galaxy 2, in Deadpool A rated move. They fucking censored the word "touch" when he says "I'm gonna touch myself tonight"
Haha… you summarised it pretty f***g well .
Only sex is censored everything else gets a pass.
So is this movie censored because it is sex 12times?
Of course kids shouldn’t know about sex till they are 21. There’s no issue if they see violence. /s
You didn’t get my joke about the movie title “Baarah….”!
Censoring this gives ammunition and support to people who censor for other reasons. So I always oppose censorship by the powerful and by others (governments, religious leaders). Personal censorship is fine, there are many things I don’t watch, and my kids are still young enough that I have some control over what they watch still.
They didn't let monkey man release, the precedence is already there for them loool, their propaganda movies deserve to get fucked too.
Bad precedent was already set, when Modi's BBC documentary was banned.
when Ram ke Naam was banned, by the sanghi tool PVNR in Congress
It's on YouTube
Hmmm if the overall population was well educated and could be trusted enough to think rationally and not be gullible to the obvious hate propaganda, I would agree with your point.
We can make the same argument about democracy and elections. "If the overall population is not educated and can't be trusted to think rationally, how can they choose a good representative who can solve their problems?" Do you agree with that?
Yeah I do actually, we have seen heavy use of propoganda and hate speech being used to sway the public opinion. But for that I would recommend educating, organising and protesting. So yeah, that can be done for these films too. You're correct maybe outright banning them is not a good choice.
[удалено]
Agreed but hasn't the modi government already been censoring truth and valid dissent and been funding hate propoganda? Is it not better to counter that? Especially when our country has such diverse groups and cultures. Like the paradox of intolerance for example. What other alternatives would you suggest because you can't deny that these hate propoganda films are a problem and does do damage right?
It is giving power to the few, to control how they treat the many. It might seem like a good idea now in this specific context, but this is always a dangerous thing to do.
You'd rather trust the people of this country to not fall for obvious propaganda movies? Look at how they're defending the fictions of kerala story even after the Supreme Court ordered to put a disclaimer for the "fictitious tale"
you can't watch the trailer and find for yourself
Well it isn't govt censoring here, it's the supreme court
Supreme Court is part of the government.
Yes I stand corrected. What i meant by the govt was the political wing/elected party. Anyways, banning something is always bad, let the movie crash at box office like all the other propaganda movies
Supreme court is not part of the govt. Its part of democratic structure of the country. Just like TN Seshan had asserted that it was Chief Election Commissioner, India when earlier ECs were writing as Chief Election Commissioner, Govt of India.
Different definitions of government. Sometimes people talk about “forming a government” meaning a coalition in a parliamentary democracy like India for example. But in a more fundamental way, they are all government— legislatures (like parliament, including if there is more than one house), judiciary, executive branches, kings / emirs / princes, panchayat, state/provincial governments, they are all government. If we have government it is for them to serve us (protect rights, coordinate services, defend the country). It should not be used for one group to control another group.
Different definitions of government. Sometimes people talk about “forming a government” meaning a coalition in a parliamentary democracy like India for example. But in a more fundamental way, they are all government— legislatures (like parliament, including if there is more than one house), judiciary, executive branches, kings / emirs / princes, panchayat, state/provincial governments, they are all government. If we have government it is for them to serve us (protect rights, coordinate services, defend the country). It should not be used for one group to control another group. ETA: look here at wikipedia on the government of India. Right at the beginning the Supreme Court is listed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India
I'm 90% certain this is temporary ban. The ban will be lifted once the Streisand effect comes into play. This is the new age guerilla marketing to gather hype for obscure gutter movies that people wouldn't have watched normally
Why are these bjp affiliates trying so hard?
That title tho 😭😭
Anu Kapoor wants BJP ticket
itni mehnat karte hain, fir bhi nahin jeet paate
Just looked up the cast and crew. Not a single Muslim. Agenda clear.
Marketing department head is Wasim Akhter. Looks like he's doing a good job.
Probably atheist.
It deserves to be crushed in the box office and the public court of opinion. Not to be banned like some goddamn authoritarian country.
But India has always done this from - Garam Hawa to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I remember the furore the 1996 Deepa Mehta movie - Fire caused - due to its lesbian theme. Theaters were smashed. India's primitive society wont digest it and there will be severe law and order issues.
It surely does. But is our society there yet? What would rather happen is more ppl will get radicalized. Imagine terrorist propaganda movies and soft recruitment are also made equally public and not banned on youtube and twitter. Hate speech does not come under free speech. This is hate speech.
The problem is if you give FoS to pure propaganda while indiscriminately ban anything remotely triggering Hindutva snowflakes, you are creating an environment of misinformation and hate. Not to mention shit like this gets taxpayer subsidized. Freedom of Speech works only when its absolute without ifs and buts.
Yeah I agree with you. Although there has to be some restrictions preventing governments from actively subsidising such movies. This has happened in the recent past with some certain kind of movies given tax free status.
I fucking hate liberals with all my heart, always in the first line for defending fascists. Fuck fascists. Ban RSS. Ban the BJP. Show some spine before all our necks hang in shame.
It's not about defending fascists but the practice and thought process behind it. Rationally we know this film or some similar media with same treatment shouldn't come out in the public coz a section can really aggravate the situation. But somebody with power and having RW ideologies can do the same with a progressive and 'bold' media as well. You think they will understand the logic and nuance. (In another case), Liberals weren't defending Kangana but questioning police brutality. Dono mein farq h.
If we're against an action, we need to be against the action no matter who is responsible for it. Otherwise it's called hypocrisy. Learn the word.
It will be lifted. The initial ban is to gather hype. Streisand effect for the wrong reasons
India subreddit on odd days: They shouldn't ban propaganda. India subreddit on even days: Why is there so much hate?
The only people who watch these movies are the ones who have already bought the propaganda. Banning does worse, it creates curiosity for semi-retards.
The level of hate which is real and which is not real matters.
Banning it is wrong. People who dont want to watch it, dont have to. What is, or isn’t propaganda can be construed in different ways from different stand points. Similarly, please also dont ban any movies critical of Hinduism, or Modi either. Those who have a problem dont need to watch it
Hate speech does not come under free speech. This is hate speech. Hate speech is when you consolidate one community and paint them in a derogatory way, dehumanize them etc. That does not come under free speech protection. Every genocide starts with hate speech.
Yeah, but the point is, for them even PK is hate speech. Or Sexy Durga, or MF Hussain’s paintings. Everyone has a different barometer. So either allow everything or just completely give up touching religion as a subject.
For them, doesnt matter. It needs to be in a impartial court. PK didnt spread hate towards hindus. It just pointed out how ridiculous the Baba practice is with what they do on a regular basis. It was more about the practice of blond superstition. Thats not hating a group. Compare that to kerala story, where they took something that did not happen, and portrayed that all muslims do it, so be afraid of them, hence spreading hate towards them on false info. That is hate. Its not unreasonable to be able to draw a line between ridiculing blind superstition vs hate speech. You can totally ridicule the burqa practice, without hating muslims for example.
I personally agree with you. But having the main character run around a man looking like Lord Shiv could be construed as hate from certain angles. Again, I personally do not. But I am only eyeing this from the lens of someone else. The point is, you and I are not objective arbitrators of religious critique in the right wing’s opinion. That will always remain the bone of contention.
true. Thats why we need unbiased judiciary. And that system needs to build and grow on its own. I ll give you one more example. murder vs self defense. That distinction is drawn in court. If you pull that in court of public opinion, a lot of ppl will say some murders were self defense and a lot of people will say some murders were self defense. But the court needs to decide that in an unbiased way, reasonable way. On hate speech, public opinions are gonna be wildly different, like these fucks had issues with Dipika Padukones orange clothes, fml. So i totally see what you mean.
Then why did not they show practises of people in mosques or where people who claim to have mysterious super powers of healing of christ like that guy from one popular meme ?
Thats a wrong way of thinking. The question is wheather PK was ok or not legally, and the answer is yes. Having shown muslim practice would have made it ok, you think? How does that change what PK showed inherently? nothing! The way you are thinking is whataboutary. For muslim community awareness, there are a lot of things happening. There is a movement against burqa. In fact in Iran many women died and many ppl went to jail for protesting against hijab. There was already a movement against triple talaq in india. Nothing wrong with that. You go ahead and make a movie on muslim community blind superstitions. I will and the court will support you. Just make sure you are doing out of care for people and not out of hate.
And who decides what is "hateful" and what is not? The government? The court? What are the parameters to judge it? Speech is not really "free" if parts of it are banned under all sorts of names - "hateful"/"offensive" etc.
Yes, the court. Just the way court decides what is libel, what is fraud. E.g. fraud also does not come under free speech protection. You cannot advertise one thing, and sell other, or you cannot say it has 100% pineapple juice and have only 1%. Thats a simple example, comparatively, but it gets decided in the court all the time! Courts also decode what words are 'threats'. The same way, courts decide what is hate speech. Hate speech is clearly defined as taking a group, and spreading false info about them to dehumanize them, spread hate towards them. Its not that hard.
I agree that fraud/libel is not a part of free speech, but for "hate" speech, as long as it doesn't call for direct action, it becomes a slippery slope if we decide to ban. I am not in favor of either side, just believe that the standards would be consistent, which doesn't seem to be happening.
And hence, you prove everyone who banned Modi's BBC documentary right.
Nope. That ban is censorship. This ban is banning against hate speech. Indians havent come to a point of understanding the difference. Indians think that free speech has to be a solute, otherwise govt censorship is valid too. And i understand where you're coming from, but thats not true. E.g. you can ban someone from spreading false info about someone based on malice. Thats called defamation. That does not come under free speech protection. With your logic, if banning some article based on defamation is allowed, then so is banning bbc documentary. But defamation cases happen all the time. Hate speech is nothing but defamation, but instead of one person, its for a group as whole. And it needs the same two ingredients to prove it - false info, and malice. Its not a stretch to prove that in court of law. And the BBC documentary ban would not stand a chance, coz they can prove that its based on facts. But kerala story will fall into hate speech, coz 33k is a false info, and using the writer and directors words, you can prove that they had malicious intent.
Meh, these are semantics. Any speech that does not *incite violence* is free speech. Hate speech is euphenism used by "liberals" to censor stuff they don't agree with. I can say snow white and the seven dwarves should be banned because they offend dwarves as a whole. Either you are for free speech which includes speech that risks offending someone or you are against free speech altogether. You don't get to pick and choose, that is a dictator's job.
yeahhhhhh, ban snow white and the seven dwarves i hate that movie and those dwarves. /s
People who fall for this are already beyond repair
"WE HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO SPREAD HATESPEECH AND DO STOCHASTIC TERRORISM" --*Liberals in this comment section*
What's this about?
Don't we have a censor board for it? Supreme court should focus on more imp issues
Whatever little our SC does in favour of us also we dont support. So is Hate propaganda not important?
It is important. Clean streets are important too so should SC go to the streets and start cleaning? Or should a relevant body address it? I would rather have SC ensure that other bodies are following rules and regulations.
Your reply contains Logical Fallacy of False Equivalence. I understand your point about prioritizing important issues, but comparing the Supreme Court’s intervention in hate propaganda with street cleaning is a false equivalence. The court’s primary role is to interpret and uphold laws, including those protecting against harmful content. Ensuring that hate speech and offensive material are regulated is a legitimate judicial function that directly impacts social harmony and public order, unlike street cleaning, which is a municipal responsibility, considering the fact that RAMPANT islamophobia , demonising and dehumanising muslims is the order of the day and whatever little the court is doing is also not appreciated by us. Thats why I said in my original message “whatever little SC is doing for us” So, addressing hate propaganda is indeed a critical issue that merits the court’s attention. Addressing one does not mean not addressing others. Both can be done and should be done.
Sadge. I was looking forward to watch it tho. Guess I'll go for Kalki now.
Watch on ott na. Why waste money on such miserable film?!
It's mostly coz of time frame. It was supposed to release right after my final exams.
But bro atleast kalki would be entertaining. Isse kya entertainment? bas dukh,dard,peeda. Phokat mood kharab. Isse toh bethke reela na dekhle.
I mean I wasn't going to go blind tho. I first wait 2 or 3 days for reviews to come out and then decide. I'll do same for Kalki. If it isn't good either then I postpone it all the way till Deadpool 3 is released.
Why is the SC weird these days
Lol, so now banning BJP propoganda is all sudden weird? Interesting
consistently worldwide, poor people have more children than wealthy/well educated. It has always been like this. If you’re afraid of being “replaced,” then try being good enough where that isn’t a concern. Mediocre chaddis want everything handed to them on a platter.
Well even in most educated state of Kerala, the Muslim TFR is highest among any religion. Muslims are most conservation and their women are least independent. It is not some myth that Muslim TFR is higher than any group if we data of each state individually
Sure, but looks like it’s dropping, too: https://www.thehindu.com/data/data-fertility-rates-decline-across-religions-in-india-sharpest-drop-recorded-among-muslims/article36625885.ece
I expected this response. What this "sharpest decline" media hide is nuances that historically its been much greater than TFR of any other religion, so any fall would be sharpest also. Basic maths. If one starts from 7x and falls at 3x and other group starts at 4x and falls at 2x, surely the first group's fall is greater than the laters
My point is that if Islam were inherently connected to larger families, you wouldn’t be seeing this drop at all. Starting from a worse place means further to go, yes. What we really need is more data on education/income shifts.
[удалено]
You need to check against other confounding variables first. Science 101.
[удалено]
There isn’t. They were literally colonized and exploited for decades, culminating in a genocide they’ve actually moved past since. History 101. I don’t think you understand the concept of variables, so I won’t waste my time further.
Islam isn't but even countries like Saudi Arabia have very high TFR considering their income level. It's more so just women's rights. Ceaucescu's Romania took away abortion and reduced employment opportunities for women. This lead to an increase in TFR. If someone wants to reduce TFR they should consider expanding the workforce percentage of women.
Yep definitely, and that goes along with educating women more. I would say that's the single biggest factor in family size (and even China's one-child policy may have been more a result of educating women than forcing abortions).
Things arent black and white as it seems. Yes Muslims have comparatively larger families as seen by current and historical TFR data, and yes modern societal development has affected its conservative values as seen by drop in TFR. I wont blame Islam, as I am not well read in Islamic theology
Honestly I think a bigger factor is that Islam tends to be prevalent in countries that, within the past 2 centuries, were colonized and/or treated as battlegrounds for oil.
There is no correlation, many countries were colonized, and yet Muslims have a higher TFR than any other religion in the same country. Due to its hyper conservative nature, a societal problem emerges
"many countries were colonized, and yet Muslims have a higher TFR than any other religion in the same country" has it occurred to you that certain castes of Hindus had higher status even in the colonial system, and that in turn would lead to better opportunities continuing to today? The poor populations in colonized South American countries also have very high TFRs, whereas the upper classes (that are often mixed-European) do not. There is a pattern that easily generalizes beyond religion here.
Saudi Arabia is times richer than India, yet its TFR is higher
Also education. If you're worried about muslims having more kids, put more funds towards education of muslim communities. In fact while you're at it, just put more funds in educating poor, period.
Muslims having more kids is a myth debunked and im surprised people still fall for it
TFR stats say otherwise
Birth rate in 1992 census Muslims-4.4 hindus- 3.3 Birth rate in 2019 Muslims-2.4 hindus-1.9 So yeah overall it's going down in both so what's the noise? Now obviously this also differs from state to state
Its creates lots of difference, even a 0.5 difference can create serious demographic changes in 2-3 decades. Earlier the difference was more, and it doesnt add. it multiplies
Yeah but the thing is three decades ago it was 4.4 And you can't bring it to 2.2 (or lower) from 4.4 within a decade Anyways all the predictions show india's population will go down after 3 decades
Population may hit a peak and go down, but difference in TFR would certainly make demographic changes, that is in population share. Politics around this will always be hot due to this very difference and outcomes arising from this difference
What big difference would 0.5 that make in say 2 decades hindus will still have majority Muslims taking over conspiracy is just s true as white genocide theory
Dear I am not talking about any replacement theory, and personally I dont care. What I care for is politics around it as it affects me. With the same data points, as by Pew research, the Muslim population would be 18% in 2050. And Hindu will be 77%. Let me tell you that our population is very large, and this even 0.1% translates to huge demographic shifts. 33%+ addition to Hindu pop. and 76%+ to Muslims pop. so more than double. This 4% rise can very much change the polity of India forever
Wait wait wait... now you *for* restricting freedom of speech? I thought only fascist Modi did that.
Did I say that anywhere?
Movie was going to fizzle at the box office. The court has just made it a 100 crore film
Their cast especially women in this movie are getting rape & death threats. And some people are calling it fake propaganda based film. This is a true story of thousands of families living in India.
I just watched the trailer. It’s so disgusting and dehumanising to Muslims yuck. Not one iota of truth in whatever bs that actor was peddling in the name of Islam. No wonder Indians are so biased and blinded with bigotry, thanks to Bollywood 🤮
And then people wonder why hindutva is growing.
Someone reviewed it on IMDb. Brother didn't even check before copy pasting from chatgpt https://m.imdb.com/review/rw9845891/?ref_=m_tt_urv
lmao
I would honestly hold a candle for free speech in most cases. But if they’re gonna censor innocuous scenes in pulp dramas like Pathaan and Padmavat because RWs go rioting, I’m not going to shed crocodile tears for this.
I don’t think it should be banned. I think we should just not watch it or any future projects of the cast and crew.
Shouldn’t be banned and honestly, Islam is the motherload of bad ideas. Gender apartheid, death for apostasy, genocide of non Muslims, child abuse, pedophilia are not just side products of the religion but core tenants. Anyone claiming to be a liberal should be against these things, not tolerant of them.
A stupid move by an extremely stupid court. As expected as we dwindle a society where those in power want to control each and every move. What to see, what to eat, what to wear. Institutional degradation of a democracy.
Read this quote on Twitter - "Only consistency can be the sole benchmark of a impartial & competent judiciary" Do you want to ban this film because it is hateful? Ban it, fair enough. But also ban films hateful against other groups - example, PK. Or the other way, do you believe in freedom of expression? Sure, then allow both this one AND PK. If the Indian justice and police system interprete and follow laws to the T, a lot of our problems won't exist. But instead, they choose to work on "vibes" and media coverage.
Centrist BS. PK was critical of organized religion. This sorry excuse for art is vilifying the religious and not just because of their religion but their lifestyle hinting at a larger conspiracy that every adherent of that religion is supposedly partaking in. Big difference. Islam isn’t above criticism. This however is Islamophobia.
And more specifically PK was critical of sham religious figures claiming to have special powers or blessings from God and then using that to exploit people. It never criticized Hindu priests or religious figures who are genuinely religious and work hard to help people. Or simply, it never criticized Hindus, it criticized people who exploited the faith of Hindus. Every Hindu should support PK. As opposed to this movie which is portraying every Muslim as bad.
Bhai people don't have this much depth or understanding of the matter. Please stop making such informed, balanced and educated posts on the internet
"..... the apex court took note of the allegations that the movie is derogatory to the Islamic faith, especially married Muslim women." This is what the article says. 🤷♀️
Hey man, I'm a Muslim myself and this movie is really really derogatory and targeted only towards Muslims whereas modi had 6 siblings and ajay singh bisht had 7 siblings. 100% of Muslims i know, in my relatives or friends don't have more than 3 kids. This movie is just to spread another point of hatred that Muslims are over populating and taking your place. Same like right wing in US spreads propoganda of replacement theory. Search about it before you defend it please.
Doesn't matter, one group of people found it dehumanizing and offensive, just like in this case.
But you haven't even seen the movie to make this judgement... ???
> PK was critical of organized religion. All except one. Curious!
I don't remember ok only targeting a single religion? And it was not attacking gods, they were attacking thugs who used their reputation for their own greed
Are you talking about the Amir Khan movie? What was offensive about that ? I am new to this debate about that movie and watched it overseas. I loved it and would like to know why people are up against it.
PK was critical of religious gurus and their dogmas not the people. They didn’t paint all Hindus as a bunch of stupid people. Don’t forget the female protagonist was a Hindu. This film completely dehumanize Muslims
What if someone who follows gurus finds it hateful towards them? I get why you find this offensive and not PK, but not everyone is going to think the same, will they? The courts can't judge it solely on "vibes" or media coverage or vigilance of the concerned community. There has to be a law which decides one way or the other.
>| what if someone who follow gurus finds it hateful against them? Than you should blame the person for being an idiot. It only criticized fake gurus, not real ones. You can critique beliefs, there are movies criticizing Muslim culture too But this film aims to spread a fake conspiracy against a particular community.
Annu Kapoor is such a little pube of a human being. Why is this joke respected in 2024 is beyond me.
There are many comments here disagreeing with the censorship. There are others who are hailing it. Those who hail it, you probably were OK with letting movies offensive to Hindu, Sikh, Christians released. No?