BJP wants Sanatan Censor Board for Bollywood - Page 7

Originally posted by: snatch

christian groups didnt censor those movies in us or uk. some church making hue and cry no one bothered. if some temple priest make a protest is ignorable, i the the law of the land wants to censor a movie based on religious sentiments, that is not a progressive step.

anybody practicing extremism is wrong and every single religion is man made for political gains.

Christians are not behind in calling for boycott. Diff is very few governments pay attention to the church.

There was one incident in Kerala where The Last Temptation of Christ was part of curriculum in BA English Litt (I think). Protests happened. Imbecile Kerala govt banned it. That book was SOOO badly written that it should've been the cause of not having it in curriculum.😆 But entire India was in a delicate situation at the time. This was around when fatwa against Rushdie was pronounced. Central govt banned Satanic Verses also. It was Thatcher who told Khomeini that even if Rushdie dies of a random cause, she'd turn desert into glass. Embarassing for India!

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

1. I have seen the image. While context matters, the courts have already ruled that *appearance* of the person/character matters more in deciding whether p*rn is child p*rn.

Substitute a cartoon pic for a photo or video, and all considerations for the suggestible nature of children out of the window.

So why are there movie ratings? Video games? Age restrictions for alcohol and tobacco? Why is there an age restriction for military?

2. Even if argument is bought that since it's not actual people, they're not children, p*rn is still p*rn. When did it become OK for it to be in middle school libraries?

3. Yes, it IS up to the parents. If you (generic you) want your kid to read that? Go right ahead. There is still the public library and the bookstore.

Gender Queer has not been banned from any of those places.

The same way I do not get to ban books from your children, you (generic you) do not get to expose my kids to p*rn.

4. You certainly do not get to call my child IT. He/she is a precious human.

5. And yeah, if you (generic you) are a pedophile, don't bother labeling yourself minor-attracted. You should still be castrated, then pound to a pulp.

5. I 100% agree that the horrors of history should not be hidden from children. To forget history is to repeat the mistakes of the past. But again, don't teach children to hate each other.

As I said, it is not my place to tell parents when and how their kids should consume literature or media that is sexual in nature. I am not opposed to ratings systems in books, similar to video games and movies where parents make the choice.

But the problem is some folks are trying to ban books from public libraries as well. And that is censoring an entire community based on personal preferences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/

----

I have no idea where the question of calling children "IT" came from. I don't know any person who refers to another person as it (unless the person in question is Pennywise). Can you still say "It's a boy/girl"?

I have no idea where the question of pedophilia came from. We're talking about literature and media that may be sexually explicit in content. Pedophilia on the other hand is a heinous crime.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

As I said, it is not my place to tell parents when and how their kids should consume literature or media that is sexual in nature. I am not opposed to ratings systems in books, similar to video games and movies where parents make the choice.

But the problem is some folks are trying to ban books from public libraries as well. And that is censoring an entire community based on personal preferences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/

----

I have no idea where the question of calling children "IT" came from. I don't know any person who refers to another person as it (unless the person in question is Pennywise). Can you still say "It's a boy/girl"?

I have no idea where the question of pedophilia came from. We're talking about literature and media that may be sexually explicit in content. Pedophilia on the other hand is a heinous crime.

I vehemently disagree with banning any books from the public library or bookstores.

Out in the public, children can be guided by parents who are hopefully invested in their well-being. Or they can sneak it for themselves. I read smut when I was too young to. It didn't hurt me.

What the kids don't need is an authority, like a school, promoting age-inappropriate behavior. There's a diff between me sneaking an erotic novel and the school librarian handing it to me. Skirting very close to grooming. Which is where the question of pedophilia popped up.

The IT part is from San Fran Unified SD. They're telling kids they can identify as IT. Sounds so benign when the choice is left to kids. But kids' minds are suggestible. A well-known fact. When an authority figure suggests, kids are eager to please.

That pronoun has a deserved reputation of being used by pedos/pervs/abusers/sex traffickers for their victims. IT is a dehumanizing pronoun. The encouragement of the use of IT cannot be seen as anything but deliberate, and where children are concerned, the process is grooming.

There was also the recent book which came out calling pedos minor-attracted persons. Long Dark Shadow. The material inside is said to be helpful in preventing pedos from putting thought into action. But sorry. Language matters. This change in terminology is a way to make it sound benign.

The author eventually resigned from his position at U of V. His association then accused those who were upset at the language of transphobia.

Book isn't banned, btw. And it shouldn't be.

But none of the above has anything to do with LGBTQ phobia and everything to do with the physical and mental well-being of children of whatever gender, sexuality, race, class, nationality. Applying a queer filter on grooming doesn't make it acceptable.

None of this is to say there aren't bigots using the situation to spread hatred against the queer community. Of course there are. But their existence doesn't change the fact that there is a difference between censorship and insisting that the school doesn't emotionally manipulate children.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

lol some church? Man that's the Vatican. Some church!😆

there were protests back then in the US too and one would remember that unless they were living under a rock. Not quite the embrace you were claiming. 😉In any case, the scene in 2006 was a bit more tolerant everywhere. Try making a film like that in today's America and see how quickly the far-right Christian groups take you out.

by the way, are you ok with the Prophet being mocked and the cartoons they had in France? 😉Or are you like one of the leftist Dems for whom Islam is the one religion that no one should say anything against? 😉

there is something seriously wrong with ur approach towards this discussion. i dont want to further this discussion

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Christians are not behind in calling for boycott. Diff is very few governments pay attention to the church.

There was one incident in Kerala where The Last Temptation of Christ was part of curriculum in BA English Litt (I think). Protests happened. Imbecile Kerala govt banned it. That book was SOOO badly written that it should've been the cause of not having it in curriculum.😆 But entire India was in a delicate situation at the time. This was around when fatwa against Rushdie was pronounced. Central govt banned Satanic Verses also. It was Thatcher who told Khomeini that even if Rushdie dies of a random cause, she'd turn desert into glass. Embarassing for India!

exactly my point. isn't it embarassing for modern society

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

But there is another kind of censorship happening. Where history is being erased to make people comfortable. Stories depicting the horrors of slavery, indentured labor building railroads, Japanese internment camps, and even the holocaust are being erased so that children do not feel bad, guilty, or uncomfortable about what their ancestors did. I don't think censoring history is right at all. What happened should be taught openly and transparently without sugar coating.

But India censored all of this. India censored Mughal era horrors of killing, raping and converting people. India censored British rule and colonialism horrors. Heck India has roads and cities named after people who pillaged and destroyed communities, monuments dedicated to colonial rulers.

India raised 3 generations with such delicacy and mollycoddled history. Now when some historians are coming up with harsh truth, these pampered lads are having meltdowns.
2 extremes are happening, one side is blaming current living people for what happened in the past and other side is in denial and feels cornered. Balance is lost. What should have happened was, we as nation accepted the truth and started from there: Congress’ appeasement ruined generations.

Germany is fine example of accepting the past and moving forward with it.
Although all world standards become false when it comes to India.

Originally posted by: snatch

there is something seriously wrong with ur approach towards this discussion. i dont want to further this discussion

no worries if you don't get the debating approach and don't wish to continue. I was just challenging the various assertions you made- that India is going Pak way, that there were no protests by Christian groups against Da Vinci Code, and that the Vatican is just a church or so. But I do agree that religions are man-made constructs, even though there are many people who think their religion was revealed by God to their Prophet. They are the ones who need to be convinced to not go so crazy about every word in their religious books.

Originally posted by: JackSparrowcraz

The Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti, a top body of Hindu seers and religious leaders, Friday moved the demand for a Sanatan Censor Board at a meeting in New Delhi to address the “anti-Hindu narrative” being shown in Bollywood movies.

The meeting also passed a resolution demanding that the word ‘minority’ be removed for the description of religious groups and that the Ministry of Minority Affairs be abolished. “There is no minority and majority in India,” Mahamandaleshwar Swami Yatindranand Giri said.

Raising objections over Prabhas and Saif Ali Khan starrer ‘Adipurush’, Yatindranand demanded the formation of the Sanatan Censor Board at the meeting.

Discussions revolved around the “controversial role” of the Central Board of Film Certification and the need to establish a Sanatan Censor Board was felt, Saimiti general secretary Swami Jitendranand Saraswati told ThePrint.

Jitendranand seconded the proposal for constitution of the board.

“The censor board has been ineffective and it failed to take action against anti-India and anti-Hindu narrative that is showcased through Bollywood movies. Bollywood has made a habit of depicting Hindu gods and goddesses in a poor light and also the sant samaj of the county,”

“At the same time, they also contain propaganda against the defence forces of India. All of this has been allowed to go unchecked by the Censor Board. Considering that the Censor Board has failed to perform its duties, we passed a resolution to have a Sanatan Board.”

Jitendranand claimed that so far only social media has been acting as a bulwark against the “assault on Hindu religious sentiments.”

To a question on why such a board is needed, Yatindranand said Bollywood as well as Hindi television channels show the Hindu religion and the saints and seers in a negative way.

“The saints and other Hindu religious leaders are shown as criminals and corrupt people. We are not against entertainment, and this is not entertainment. This is part of a nefarious design to malign Hindu dharma,” he claimed.

Yatindranand also said that just like there is a Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee in Sikhism, Hinduism too needs to be protected against this assault in the name of entertainment.

On the question of the functioning of the board, Jitendranand said, “How this board will function still has to be worked out. But this will be a non-government board which will evaluate movies from a religious perspective. Bollywood has been making a hue and cry over the boycott calls and they blame the Hindu samaj for it but they are the ones who make anti-Hindu movies that perform well in other countries, including China.”

I don't see BJP anywhere in the article. Was your title just clickbait, or are you assuming that anything Hindu == BJP? Actually, it's NO: a big portion of the Hindu community is turned off by the party due to it turning a blind eye to muslim atrocities both in India and abroad. Had there been a Hindutva party other than the BJP, the BJP would be looking at a debacle in 2024

I agree w/ the Hindu sants above. Either Bollywood, or Urduwood as Sandeep Newar calls it, should be a free for all when it comes to blasphemy, or none should be tolerated. Just try doing a movie on islam's sacred figures and see how long they last. Which is why it's never even attempted! Since Hindus don't have their equivalent of jihadis, the sants above are trying it a legal way - to prevent anti-Hindu movies from being made. Also, boycott calls are the most democratic way that people can protest anything - be it movies, products, services or anything else

As they say, what's sauce for the goose is ketchup for the gander