Monthly Archives: January 2013

WHY do some people take to the streets over a film they deem as insulting to their value system, beliefs, principles and way of life?

Simon Jenkins in his article Rated L for lies said , ...films appeal to inner fears and chauvanist prejudice... (Sunday Star, Jan 27).

It is precisely because of this that the Tamil film Vishwaroopam which opened on Thursday to packed houses has been withdrawn from cinemas following a directive from the Home Ministry after the Penang Muslim League president Datuk Najmudeen Kadeer demanded a review of the film as it portrayed Islam in a negative light. (The Star, Jan 26).

The protest probably followed the ban on the film by the Tamil Nadu government in India after it created unhappiness among Muslims in that state.

Going by the slogan of Rakyat Di Dahulukan, the Home Ministry has directed the Malaysian Film Censorship Board to review it.

The issue before us as a civilised society is where do we draw the line whether a film is seen as touching on ones religious or socio-politico sensitivities?

If we want to scrutinise every films, then we can make a mountain out of a molehill for almost every film touching on ones sensitivity.

To some, like film director Kathryn Bigelow, who when commenting on her film Zero Dark Thirty which depicted gruesome scenes of CIA waterboarding in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, said it is just a movie not a documentary and pleads her First Amendment right to create works of art and speak her conscience..(Sunday Star, Jan 27). Prior to 1980, films were seen as entertainment and viewed for its cinematic appeal.

Classic films such as Ben Hur, Spartacus, The Bible, Ten Commandments, The Fall of the Roman Empire, King of Kings, Jesus of Nazareth, Cleopatra, Doctor Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia, were never an issue.

Today, any film with a Christian theme must have a crawler warning Muslims that these films are for non-Muslims only to prevent any issues arising from it, by some individuals or NGOs.

Originally posted here:
Film censorship board walking a tightrope

GUANTANAMO NAVY BASE, Cuba -- Someone else besides the judge and security officer sitting inside the maximum-security court here can impose censorship on what the public can see and hear at the Sept. 11 trial, it was disclosed Monday

The role of an outside censor became clear when the audio turned to white noise during a discussion of a motion about the CIAs black sites.

Confusion ensued. A military escort advised reporters that the episode was a glitch, a technical error. A few minutes later, the public was once again allowed to listen into the proceedings and Army Col. James Pohl, the judge, made clear that neither he nor his security officer was responsible for the censorship episode.

If some external body is turning the commission off based on their own views of what things ought to be, with no reasonable explanation, the judge announced, then we are going to have a little meeting about who turns that light on or off.

His comments appeared to be aimed at the Pentagon prosecution team. Attorney Joanna Baltes, representing the Justice Department on secrecy matters in the case, advised the judge that she could explain what other forces have a hand in censoring the court proceedings. But not in open session.

The alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four accused conspirators were sitting in court, listening to everything that was being said from the part that the public was forbidden to hear to the judges demand for an explanation. Three of the defendants adorned their traditional white tunics with camouflage, an attire option they won from the judge to appear at trial as self-styled soldiers.

The strange censorship episode occurred as attorney David Nevin, defending Mohammed, was advising the judge that defense lawyers had wanted to argue a motion in court to preserve whatever remained of the CIAs secret overseas prison network. Prosecutors had filed a classified response to the request, and the judge asked the two sides if they would let their motions speak for themselves. Nevin was explaining why not.

Defense lawyers argue the alleged 9/11 conspirators were tortured in the so-called black sites, and that the U.S. government has lost its moral authority to seek their execution. The CIA set up the sites during the Bush administration, reportedly in Poland, Romania, Thailand and elsewhere. President Barack Obama ordered them closed.

The lawyers want the judge to order the government to preserve whats left of them, six years after Mohammed and his co-defendants were moved to Guantnamo for trial. This is a familiar role for Pohl, who was the judge in the 2004 trials of U.S. soldiers for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and declared the prison in Iraq a crime scene, forbidding its demolition.

Unclear so far in these hearings is whether the judge knows where the black-site prisons were and whether any of them remain. Although he has a special security clearance to hear the 9/11 case, the CIA has not yet released classified information to the court because the defense and prosecution are still haggling over a protective order.

Read the original here:
Strange censorship episode at Guantánamo enrages judge