(no subject)
Jan. 4th, 2006 11:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rozkOf all the artists one might have expected to produce an effective piece of agitprop against King George W - who is looking tired-, I would not have placed Joe Dante high on the list.
Much as I like his work. ( I think Small Soldiers is a hugely under-rated film, for example.)
I am not going to say anything much about Homecoming, his segment of 'Masters of Horror' for Showtime, just to say that anyone who likes political satire or zombie films really needs to find a friend who has a copy for them to watch.
No spoilers, as I say, but Robert Picardo as 'Kurt Rand' and Thea Gill as 'Jane Cleaver' are memorably evil. I would say that they are wonderful caricatures, and yet Rove and Coulter are sort of beyond satire.
********
I am extremely disturbed at the remarks Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain made on Radio 4. You expect him to denounce homosexuality as sin, even though you wish he would not,. because, after all, he believes that the odd verse of the Koran here and there trumps all other conceivable evidence about right and wrong. And of course, as he says, there are things in the sacred writings of Christianity and Judaism which agree with him - as if that mattered a damn to the majority of believers, let alone the impious rest of us
But he also comes out with a lot of claptrap about scientific evidence that homosexuals spread a variety of diseases that indicates, as I have sort of suspected for a while, that religious bigots either think alike, or more probably talk to each other a lot. It sounded remarkably as if he were quoting various Christian bigots like Steven Green as if they were reliable sources of scientific evidence.
He also argues as if the only duty incumbent on us in a tolerant society is to air our own views. He has the freedom to say we are scum, and we have the freedom to disagree.
The idea that he might have a duty in a tolerant society to hold back on his right to say staggeringly offensive things, because of the pain he causes, and the violence he helps to incite, clearly does not occur to him.
To suggest that a period of silence from him on this issue would be welcome is not oppressing him, it is merely asking him to be more polite.
Much as I like his work. ( I think Small Soldiers is a hugely under-rated film, for example.)
I am not going to say anything much about Homecoming, his segment of 'Masters of Horror' for Showtime, just to say that anyone who likes political satire or zombie films really needs to find a friend who has a copy for them to watch.
No spoilers, as I say, but Robert Picardo as 'Kurt Rand' and Thea Gill as 'Jane Cleaver' are memorably evil. I would say that they are wonderful caricatures, and yet Rove and Coulter are sort of beyond satire.
********
I am extremely disturbed at the remarks Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain made on Radio 4. You expect him to denounce homosexuality as sin, even though you wish he would not,. because, after all, he believes that the odd verse of the Koran here and there trumps all other conceivable evidence about right and wrong. And of course, as he says, there are things in the sacred writings of Christianity and Judaism which agree with him - as if that mattered a damn to the majority of believers, let alone the impious rest of us
But he also comes out with a lot of claptrap about scientific evidence that homosexuals spread a variety of diseases that indicates, as I have sort of suspected for a while, that religious bigots either think alike, or more probably talk to each other a lot. It sounded remarkably as if he were quoting various Christian bigots like Steven Green as if they were reliable sources of scientific evidence.
He also argues as if the only duty incumbent on us in a tolerant society is to air our own views. He has the freedom to say we are scum, and we have the freedom to disagree.
The idea that he might have a duty in a tolerant society to hold back on his right to say staggeringly offensive things, because of the pain he causes, and the violence he helps to incite, clearly does not occur to him.
To suggest that a period of silence from him on this issue would be welcome is not oppressing him, it is merely asking him to be more polite.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-05 07:13 am (UTC)I think it's more likely that they close their ears to the same vast swathe of evidence, having made up their minds and not wanting to be confused with facts.
He also argues as if the only duty incumbent on us in a tolerant society is to air our own views. He has the freedom to say we are scum, and we have the freedom to disagree.
Absolutely. If I say in return that Islam's attitude to both women and gay people is, frankly, primitive, poisonous and ignorant, I should no doubt get into trouble... well, tough: I think it, and unlike him I could produce good evidence, principally the way certain societies with an ancient tradition of innovation and civilisation have fallen pitifully behind by ignoring the talents of half their people.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-05 03:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-05 05:46 pm (UTC)duty, schmuty
Date: 2006-02-12 12:21 am (UTC)he might have a duty in a tolerant society to hold back on his right to say staggeringly offensive things, because of the pain he causes
strikes me as a teensy bit inconsistent with
He also argues as if the only duty incumbent on us in a tolerant society is to air our own views. He has the freedom to say we are scum, and we have the freedom to disagree.
i've long argued that the "the right of free speech is tempered by the duty not to offend" argument is simply a way of denying the right qua right, making it a licence dependent on... well, on how we feel about the way it's exercised.
the responsibility which actually binds with that right, as far as i can see, is the responsibility to bear offence short of actual, criminal harm. sacranie wasn't inciting - if anything, i'm inclined to believe that his "our faiths teach us..." phrasing was a sheepish cop-out rather than a dogmatic stonewall - and the fact that he didn't observe that obligation not to bear offence does not absolve us and ours of the same obligation with respect to him.
sure, the argument is always unequal in practice when one party believes it has access to the definitive moral Word on an issue... and sure, it's easier for me to take this position as a big, bulky, white straight male... but i can't rid myself of the notion that intolerance-of-intolerance should absolutely not dress itself in the prohibitive clothes of the intolerance being intolerated. er, if you see what i mean.