Submission

02.08.05, 18:36

Last night we've watched "Submission" by Theo Van Gogh.
Based on what I've heard until now I expected something really controversial
since the director Theo Van Gogh got murdered in a way, because making this movie.

But instead of controversy what we saw was simply criticism. Definitely
nothing more.

Did you see the movie?
What you think of it?

Ervin
    • nasza_maggie Re: Submission 02.08.05, 18:51
      Ervin,
      Where did you see it? On TV or in a cinema?
      Let me know.
      smile
      • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 03.08.05, 08:38

        I have it on my computer and if you are interested I can get it for you, but
        think of a way to pass the CD (now we have guests, so in a way I'm not master of
        my own time).

        1. I could send it to you by post or
        2. my wife works on Szpitalna, so you could solve to meet with her or
        3. in max 2 weeks I could just give you somewhere or drop it off at your office.

        Let me know!

        I don't remember the date, but sometime in late May/erly June the documentary
        movie festival took place. Where you there? Did you see "Shake hands with the
        Deevil"?

        Ervin
    • usenetposts Re: Submission 03.08.05, 10:50
      I haven't seen it yet, Ervin, but I would like to see it.

      I think the controversy is really in the fact that you should be able to
      criticise without getting murdered. I am actually no fan of Salman Rushdie, and
      I would not have written his book even if I had the talent to do so, but still
      he had the right in our pluralist society to make those comments and not have a
      fatwa placed on his head.

      Who do these people think they are, that they think they can be judge, jury and
      executioner in our civilised part of the world?

      It's got to stop.
    • nasza_maggie Re: Submission 03.08.05, 11:51
      I found this:
      www.imdb.com/title/tt0432109/
      I didn't realise it was a TV film. Maybe it is a little like a documentary?
      Also it seems there are to be more parts of 'Submission'. Do you know anything
      about this?
      If you downloaded it from the net Ervin, then I can do so also.
      I'm sure we'll all meet soon (as Davey proposed in my Museum postsmile)
      Is the film very drastic?
      • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 03.08.05, 12:17

        Well you just found the movie. I don't know if it has more parts, I downloaded
        it with eMule, but it was only the 10 min long movie. Maybe it was planned to
        have more parts, but Theo Van Gogh could not finish? (now I remembered the
        documentary done by James Miller and Saira Shah about kids in Gaza, which wasn't
        finished because James Miller got shot by an Israeli soldier)

        No, the fim is not very drastic. In a way I was schocked that it wasn't
        shocking.. maybe I was expecting something that in a way would explain the killing..

        Ervin
        • nasza_maggie Re: Submission 03.08.05, 12:23
          Maybe this is part two, no?
          www.submissionparttwo.com/

          But I'm not sure....
          • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 03.08.05, 12:31

            Your are fastsmile

            Yes, it is. I watched only the first couple of seconds, but it has the same
            "language".

            Maybe there is part III too?

            Ervin
          • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 03.08.05, 12:44

            Strange.. I checked other sites with the filmography of Van Gogh, but he did not
            directed Submission II. As I read, Ayan Hirsi Ali, the Somali born Dutch senator
            (?) had intent to continue and the Muslim community tried to ban the movie. I
            watched half of the movie, but until now it is simply Ararbic rap (with some
            English and Dutch/Danish words), so subtitles are needed.

            Ervin
            • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 03.08.05, 12:48

              The text of the song is in Danish with some Arabic words.
      • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 03.08.05, 12:27

        Dave, I totally agree with what you wrote, except "our civilised part of the
        world". But I guess we can talk about this when we meet.

        I've been already at the Museum, but I will follow "news" about the meeting and
        maybe will catch up with you when you will be leaving the museum.

        Ervin
        • usenetposts Re: Submission 04.08.05, 16:07
          bartis_ervin napisał:

          >
          > Dave, I totally agree with what you wrote, except "our civilised part of the
          > world". But I guess we can talk about this when we meet.
          >
          > I've been already at the Museum, but I will follow "news" about the meeting
          and
          > maybe will catch up with you when you will be leaving the museum.
          >
          > Ervin

          I know that the stock answer to my talking about us being civilised is the very
          correct observation that they at one time had medecine and algebra ahead of
          what any of us had, and that in many areas they were the leaders.

          But there is a way to go from being the world's leader in science and art to
          the world's leader in terrorism and felafels in a few centuries, and well
          behind the rest of the world in many other things, and that is what Islam is
          responsible for.

          It certainly isn 't the fault of the Arabs intrinsically, after all, they are
          just as clever and good as we are by their natures, but we adopted a philosophy
          that doesn't suck as badly as Islam does.
          • za_morzem Re: Submission 05.08.05, 01:30
            Europe is gonna pay big price for its tolerance, reference to algebra and medicine
            that supposed to prove that arabs are actually civilized is ridiculous.
            spare it.
            Its time for reasonable immigration policy that makes entry to Europe for all
            muslims very difficult.
            • nasza_maggie Re: Submission 05.08.05, 11:22
              .
              > spare it.
              > Its time for reasonable immigration policy that makes entry to Europe for all
              > muslims very difficult.

              Why only muslems? Maybe you should stick serbs and croats in there too. After
              all they have many muslems in their countries also.
              And don't forget the Tatars in Poland - maybe we should extradite them? Oh and
              while we're at it let's stick North Koreans on the list too. And maybe put
              Chechens in there also. And whilst we're baking this cake - let's stick the
              turks and albanians in too.

              Sorry, but generalising isn't the good way to go. I agree that the immigration
              laws need a rethink - but why only with muslems. This kind of policy reminds me
              of a little guy with a moustache from the 1930's.
            • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 05.08.05, 11:29
              Muslims that are in Europe, in majority are not "immigrants". They are forced
              migrants, meaning refugees and different rules apply to them. Maybe you meant
              refugee policy?

              Throughout the history Europe wasn't as tolerant as you think. Europe greeted
              refugees from Eastern Europe in communist times, but all was turned into
              political capital and rather is was an attitude against the Soviet system.

              Contrary to the popular belief, in Europe there are only a small number of
              refugees. I think I already wrote it, but I shall do it again: in the UK there
              are 5 refugees/asylum seekers for 1.000 inhabitants, while in Liberia this
              number in 124 for inhabintants.

              As regards civilisation, probably everybody has his/her own standards. I truly
              don't believe that all this should be said in terms of "civilised" and
              "uncivilised". When some say this then it comes down to being better than the
              other and is purely arrogance.
              On the other hand, unless a person travelled in a Muslim country or know the
              basis of the religion well it is quite funny to criticise something that this
              persons knows from news or from Discovery.

              Regarding the European civilisation: during the inquisition was the Church
              "civilised", or recently, are the Serbs "civilised"?

              Ervin
              • usenetposts Re: Submission 05.08.05, 12:02
                bartis_ervin napisał:

                > Muslims that are in Europe, in majority are not "immigrants". They are forced
                > migrants, meaning refugees and different rules apply to them. Maybe you meant
                > refugee policy?
                >
                > Throughout the history Europe wasn't as tolerant as you think. Europe greeted
                > refugees from Eastern Europe in communist times, but all was turned into
                > political capital and rather is was an attitude against the Soviet system.

                While communism existed it was the biggest threat against us, and so we took
                our eyes off the longer term enemy of Europe, which we had managed to dominate
                by the time Communism took hold and we had become more complacent about them.

                >
                > Contrary to the popular belief, in Europe there are only a small number of
                > refugees. I think I already wrote it, but I shall do it again: in the UK there
                > are 5 refugees/asylum seekers for 1.000 inhabitants, while in Liberia this
                > number in 124 for inhabintants.

                I think the figure you are giving is actually not comparable. You are looking
                at apples and pears.

                You are comparing people with refugee status who are asylum seekers in course
                of processing in the UK, and who are paid for out of taxpayers money because
                they cannot work with people who have crossed Liberia's border, not receiving
                any governmnet hand outs and free to trade if they have a skill that people
                will buy.

                > As regards civilisation, probably everybody has his/her own standards. I truly
                > don't believe that all this should be said in terms of "civilised" and
                > "uncivilised". When some say this then it comes down to being better than the
                > other and is purely arrogance.

                I didn't say the other side was uncivilised, I talked about "our civilisation".
                Our idea of civilisation and their idea of civilisation is not the same. In
                most cases theirs has stood still for hundreds of years, although I would be
                the first to admit they in the period of the crusades they were in many ways on
                a par with our civilisation, and in some ways ahead of our civilisation.

                > On the other hand, unless a person travelled in a Muslim country or know the
                > basis of the religion well it is quite funny to criticise something that this
                > persons knows from news or from Discovery.

                I don't actually need to go there. I come from the UK and was brought up among
                muslims. My sister's first boyfriend was Turkish, and he was a nice guy, but
                you don't need to go to Turkey to know what Turkish people think, anymore than
                you need to go to Britain to know what British people think.

                In fact just going to Britain won't on its own tell you what people think, as
                people are politically correct in public, and keep what they really feel about
                the situation for people they can trust, which is a horrible state of affairs.

                > Regarding the European civilisation: during the inquisition was the Church
                > "civilised", or recently, are the Serbs "civilised"?

                It's interesting that to make a point about European history you have to go
                back a few centuries. Of course the Roman Church was not being civilised with
                the Inquisition. You ask a protestant, whose brothers were burned anbd buried
                alive at that time, and for which no formal apology to us has ever been given
                by Rome, to suggest that the RC church was acting in a good way?

                Of course not, but look at the difference between then and now - we in the West
                have gone forward and the Islamic world, if anything, have switched into
                reverse gear.

                And the Serbs were in the Ottoman empire, which taught them all they know about
                violence.

                I want to take your point about militarism in the religions, however, Ervin,
                and develop it - how many centuries did it take for the Christian church to go
                sour and worldly and start to spread by imposing military power? I think you
                will find it was post Constantine, in the fourth Century AD. How many centuries
                did it take for Islam to do so? Actually none. The armies spreading Islam by
                the sword were already a feature of Mohammed's own lifetime and acting with his
                express approval.

                Little wonder that the sword was and remains a major emblem of their raging and
                bullying credo.
                • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 08.08.05, 15:17
                  "You ask a protestant, whose brothers were burned anbd buried alive at that
                  time, and for which no formal apology to us has ever been given by Rome, to
                  suggest that the RC church was acting in a good way?"

                  Maybe you misunderstood what I've meant. I did not suggest that the Catholic
                  Church was acting in a good way, I would be the last to say this.
                  My point was that our "gorgeous" European civilisation weren't, is not and it
                  will never be perfect. You've just mentioned the period of crusades..

                  I think it would be better to continue this argument when we meetsmile
                  Ervin
    • za_morzem Re: Submission 06.08.05, 03:54
      europe is too tolerant, almost to an extend of losing self preservation instinct.
      nobody else is this tolerant, especially those who demand tolerance for themselves.
      and all the turks, albanians, serbs and so on... thanks but no.
      • usenetposts Re: Submission 06.08.05, 13:21
        What we actually need is world standards of tolerance.

        So that the inequity which you just identified, I think perfectly accurately,
        can be put right and still the human race live more on the tolerant side than
        the intolerant.

        The UN declaration of human rights provides a good standard, but frankly very
        few governments actually live up to the claims on them that it sets, while many
        people in more democratic countries campaign for freedoms well beyond those
        envisaged by this document, which is silence on such matters as homosexual
        marriage, and other excessive rights which some people are claiming while
        others in this world don't even have the right to choose their marriage partner
        of the opposite sex...
      • bartis_ervin Re: Submission 08.08.05, 15:20
        The sign that Europe is loosing its self-preservation instinct is not tolerancy,
        rather the negative demographic evolution.
Pełna wersja