Haadsa (Geo) - Hadiqa Kiani, Khaqan Shanawaz, Romaisa Khan - Page 5

Originally posted by: Renee.Clare

I read about the motorway incident. To be honest, if the makers mentioned that it was taken from that particular incident, then they should have taken consent of the survivor but if it was not from that particular incident, then I don't think that the drama and makers did anything wrong if they took inspiration from real life multiple incidents. It has happened before with many dramas based on real life incidents. This isn't the first case which has happened, even before this in India, I have read about so many cases where the same incident have been repeated on less busier roads at night or on highways, not only at nights, but even during daytime. This is definitely an eye-opener. The drama gives a good message in many ways where a working woman stands up on her own after that incident and fights back with the support of her children, even goes against her husband and divorces him. And wins in the end and continues to inspire other women and families with the power of social media.

Also, it was not exactly as motorway incident. Only the r*** part was same which not necessarily might have been taken from that incident because I know about such incidents happening in my country too so many times. I think, makers might have taken this from multiple incidents taking place all over the world which is fine. They didn't normalise it. But took a strong stand against such incidents. I didn't find any reason for the drama to be banned, and makers have already claimed that their drama isn't based on that particular incident. I am glad, it was allowed to run. I liked it.

Although, I do agree with Hadiqa's pov here that such dramas should always be aired with trigger warnings for the sake of multiple victims suffering. That's where these makers and channel people become insensitive regarding victim's suffering. I hope, they learn in future and be more cautious. Maybe, they can have a conversation with the victims ( if victims are comfortable) and ask their permission of what to be shown or not but they should not stop making such dramas based on real incidents.

Even if they didn't admit that they copied it from a real incident, I think it was quite obvious no matter how much they denied it. Not just the rape scene, the whole buildup was the same I heard and they even copied the children's names.

renee -- I agree with you that bad things happen everywhere but from what I read, the drama made it so close to the victim that people were able to identify her -- that was highly distressing to her.

the drama wasn't inspired by any means but rather lifted out of her life.

in her case, she chose to be anonymous and so she was never identified. her lawyer said the makers crossed lines by revealing personal details about the case which wasn't in the public domain.

as midnightlily mentioned, the names of the children were the same. this means even the children of the woman were outed and the children were upset as well -- something else that distressed the victim further.

the issue is that woman and family wanted to be anonymous and chose the option of pursuing legal justice that way. so it is wrong of makers to say it is just a drama if people can identify the victim and her family by revealing so many details that was previously not in the public domain.

it stinks of corruption and insensitivity -- if you are trying to raise awareness on such an issue, it is important to take victim consent. otherwise, just change the story with enough details that the victim cannot be identified.

Thank you for explaining so clearly

Originally posted by: mango.falooda

renee -- I agree with you that bad things happen everywhere but from what I read, the drama made it so close to the victim that people were able to identify her -- that was highly distressing to her.

the drama wasn't inspired by any means but rather lifted out of her life.

in her case, she chose to be anonymous and so she was never identified. her lawyer said the makers crossed lines by revealing personal details about the case which wasn't in the public domain.

as midnightlily mentioned, the names of the children were the same. this means even the children of the woman were outed and the children were upset as well -- something else that distressed the victim further.

the issue is that woman and family wanted to be anonymous and chose the option of pursuing legal justice that way. so it is wrong of makers to say it is just a drama if people can identify the victim and her family by revealing so many details that was previously not in the public domain.

it stinks of corruption and insensitivity -- if you are trying to raise awareness on such an issue, it is important to take victim consent. otherwise, just change the story with enough details that the victim cannot be identified.

I didn't know about them copying children's name, nor I found any article regarding it. So, of course I will be judging on whatever proof and evidence I have come across.

Like I have mentioned before that consent was definitely needed if it was taken exclusively from that incident.

Thanks for the info.

Originally posted by: MochaQueen

Even if they didn't admit that they copied it from a real incident, I think it was quite obvious no matter how much they denied it. Not just the rape scene, the whole buildup was the same I heard and they even copied the children's names.

To be honest, i did not come across any article exclusively explaining the same. I have read about multiple incidents where exactly the same scenario happened including the build up. Even in Ruswai, there was something very similar happened. So, I didn't find it exclusive. Children's name if they copied, then definitely they went wrong, and it was exclusive to the incident happened and makers should have taken consent like I have mentioned before that if it was taken from that particular incident, consent was needed.

renee -- even I didn't know about the children's names till midnightlily mentioned. what I read was the lawyer's letter and long tweet where he said the makers crossed lines by breaking her anonymity and of her family by revealing too many details that had not been in the public domain. he didn't mention which details but he did say it was lifted straight from her actual case file which should have been sealed.

the journalist who talked to the victim -- I read her tweet and long post as well. essentially people who didn't know in their circle were immediately able to identify the family and so there was chatter. this was why the victim and her family were so distressed.

I watch a lot of documentaries and not all of them have consent from those involved necessarily but they use material that is already out in the public domain. also those crimes are not of sensitive nature and are not covered by anonymity laws. that is the difference.

the reason we have option of being a jane doe in certain type of crimes is to ensure people report the crime and it gets prosecuted. news covering such crimes are not allowed to reveal any details about the victim such as age, name or any personal details. that kind of law exists for a reason. otherwise, people would hesitate to pursue justice because they want to avoid public scrutiny.

it is very insensitive of the makers to ignore the clause of anonymity especially when they claim their intent was to raise public awareness. thats why there was criticism of sensationalizing the case -- by revealing details that were not known in the public domain earlier.

the makers could have used the same premise but changed details about the woman. they could have made her a widowed aunt who was traveling back home with a sick family member for example. so many ways to tell the story and raise awareness without identifying the victim or her family. I hope the makers learn from this and do better in future.

Originally posted by: Renee.Clare

To be honest, i did not come across any article exclusively explaining the same. I have read about multiple incidents where exactly the same scenario happened including the build up. Even in Ruswai, there was something very similar happened. So, I didn't find it exclusive. Children's name if they copied, then definitely they went wrong, and it was exclusive to the incident happened and makers should have taken consent like I have mentioned before that if it was taken from that particular incident, consent was needed.

Even Ruswai was basedon a real incident, same with Khaani and many other dramas which got popularity. I think the main issue here was that the girl who the story was based on was offended by it, and instead of acknowledging their mistake and respecting her wishes, they gave preference to money and tried to be secretive about it. Like you are saying, they did not even accept that the story was based on her even though it was blatantly obvious. They wanted to show rape and how it affects her children and family, how she comes out of it, fine, but they shouldve made everything else different. Instead of copying the motorway scene, they couldve done the scene in another place so it would be less obvious na. That is the difference between being inspired and copying.

Originally posted by: mango.falooda

renee -- even I didn't know about the children's names till midnightlily mentioned. what I read was the lawyer's letter and long tweet where he said the makers crossed lines by breaking her anonymity and of her family by revealing too many details that had not been in the public domain. he didn't mention which details but he did say it was lifted straight from her actual case file which should have been sealed.

the journalist who talked to the victim -- I read her tweet and long post as well. essentially people who didn't know in their circle were immediately able to identify the family and so there was chatter. this was why the victim and her family were so distressed.

I watch a lot of documentaries and not all of them have consent from those involved necessarily but they use material that is already out in the public domain. also those crimes are not of sensitive nature and are not covered by anonymity laws. that is the difference.

the reason we have option of being a jane doe in certain type of crimes is to ensure people report the crime and it gets prosecuted. news covering such crimes are not allowed to reveal any details about the victim such as age, name or any personal details. that kind of law exists for a reason. otherwise, people would hesitate to pursue justice because they want to avoid public scrutiny.

it is very insensitive of the makers to ignore the clause of anonymity especially when they claim their intent was to raise public awareness. thats why there was criticism of sensationalizing the case -- by revealing details that were not known in the public domain earlier.

the makers could have used the same premise but changed details about the woman. they could have made her a widowed aunt who was traveling back home with a sick family member for example. so many ways to tell the story and raise awareness without identifying the victim or her family. I hope the makers learn from this and do better in future.

Exactly, and instead of raising awareness and encouraging women to stand up for themselves, it will just make them more afraid and hesitant to share their story with anyone because it can be misused like this poor soul. She was regretting that she shared her story with the journalist.

Thank you guys, I finally got your point. They should not have misused the facts. I didn't have any idea that it was copied completely, and I thought it was just inspired. Thanks for the detailed info and having the patience to listen to my perspective too.❤️

If I get time, I would read a bit more on this.

https://www.healthfasiondesk.com/romaisa-khan-sister-got-married/?fbclid=IwAR38cB7IH9y1Oiwk6jHafogzHkGW0ukIvuoffp6Ml9Vhum2UWZ36R8IntMM