Based on article from ofcom.org.uk

Islam in Focus
Peace TV, 31 July 2009, 16:10

Peace TV is an international satellite television channel, which describes itself as providing Islamic spiritual ‘edutainment’.

Islam in Focus consisted of a public lecture (the Lecture) in front of an audience, in English, by a religious speaker, Hamood Ashemaimry.

In the Lecture, entitled How to build a righteous family, the speaker set out, in his opinion, what the rights are of husbands and wives, in the context of creating a righteous family from an Islamic viewpoint.

A complaint objected to part of the Lecture which, it considered, suggested that it would be permissible for husbands to beat their wives. During the Lecture, the speaker said the following:

[A husband] should not beat [his wife] first. He should not beat her face or beat her violently. Many people misunderstand this, you know, three solution for, you know, evil women or a evil wife, or wife who is not listen to her husband. You advise her first; you disregard her in bed; you bring a mediator from her family – somebody between you to sort the problem. And then if she doesn’t – then you beat her. But beat her – it doesn’t mean to break her ribs. Beat her, tap her on her shoulder. Just let her feel you’re angry. You know the worst thing – even they listen to me, the sisters – the worst thing for a lady, just disregard her in bed, for one week, or two. This is a good solution for a quarrel wife. Don’t go to beating first of all. Try this, it works.

Ofcom asked Peace TV for its comments under the following Rules of the Code:

• Rule 2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence must be justified by the context
• Rule 2.4: Programmes must not include material, which taking into account the context, condones or glamorises violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour and is likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour.

Ofcom Decision: Breach of Rules 2.3 and 2.4

Ofcom notes that a number of its licensees will broadcast programming that will derive from a particular religious or spiritual viewpoint, and that such programming will include advice to followers of particular faiths as to how to lead their lives. It is therefore unsurprising if at times such advice might cause offence to different sections of the audience. Ofcom therefore recognises that it would be an unacceptable restriction on a broadcaster’s freedom of expression to curtail the transmission of certain views, just because they cause offence.

However, in broadcasting such content, broadcasters must be aware of the need to ensure compliance with the Code.

In particular, in one segment of the Lecture, the speaker stated that it is permissible to beat a wife in certain circumstances. Ofcom considered whether this reference complied with Rules 2.3 and 2.4 of the Code.

Even though the broadcaster stated that the speaker said that a husband should only tap his wife on the shoulder and not beat her face or beat her violently…or break her ribs, Ofcom considers that the speaker was clear that some form of beating was acceptable – as a last resort after other tactics had been used to resolve a dispute with a wife. The passage was clear that a husband could use physical violence.

Ofcom rejected Peace TV’s representations that just because some of the advice given by the speaker advocated a husband treating his wife with respect, that it would follow that he would not be advocating actions to cause a wife any physical harm. The speaker used the verb beat three times and beating once in the context of a husband chastising his wife. It considered that the speaker was clear in his advice, namely, that he was encouraging what could be portrayed as domestic violence in certain circumstances. Ofcom considers that the advice given to viewers that it was permissible for a husband to beat his wife, even if according to the broadcaster it was to be only in certain circumstances, and undertaken with restraint, would be offensive to many in the audience.

Further Ofcom considered that this offensive material could not be justified by the context. This was because of for example: the lack of any mediating or counteracting views, within the programme, to the speaker’s advocacy of beating; and that, in general, the high likelihood that many in a UK audience would find any advocacy and support at all of domestic violence – which is of course potentially criminal under UK law – to be highly offensive. The programme was therefore in breach of Rule 2.3.

With regard to Rule 2.4, the relevant test is that content must not: firstly, taking into account the context, condone or otherwise glamorise violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour; and secondly, be likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour. Ofcom considered these two issues in turn.

Ofcom noted Peace TV’s comments that it would not have been possible for the Lecture to have shown how to build a Righteous Family (and by extension a Righteous Society and a Peaceful World) if it had included material that condoned or glamorised violent, dangerous or seriously antisocial behaviour.

However, Ofcom considered that the stated subject matter and aim of the Lecture did not obviate the fact that in this case the speaker was unambiguously advocating a form of violent behaviour i.e. domestic violence. This and the fact that the Lecture was a serious, religious lecture aiming to provide spiritual guidance, could not, in Ofcom’s view, give enough contextual justification to suggest the speaker could not be reasonably portrayed as condoning violent behaviour.

In addition, Ofcom considered that the advice on beating wives within the Lecture: was delivered in a serious and measured manner by the speaker; and on a channel specialising in dispensing Islamic spiritual advice. There was therefore a strong likelihood that such advice could be construed as likely to encourage others to copy such behaviour.

Given the above, Ofcom considered that the programme was in breach of Rule 2.4.

Based on article from guardian.co.uk

Britain’s reputation for libel tourism is driving American and foreign publishers to consider abandoning the sale of newspaper and magazines in Britain and may lead to them blocking access to websites, MPs have been warned.

Publishers, human rights groups and campaigners have expressed substantial and increasing concern because comments that would be protected under the freedom of speech in the US constitution are actionable in London courts once published here, no matter how small the readership.

A memorandum submitted to a Commons select committee, ahead of a meeting with US publishers, states: Leading US newspapers are actively considering abandoning the supply of the 200-odd copies they make available for sale in London – mainly to Americans who want full details of their local news and sport. They do not make profits out of these minimal and casual sales and they can no longer risk losing millions of dollars in a libel action which they would never face under US law. Does the UK really want to be seen as the only country in Europe – indeed in the world – where important US papers cannot be obtained in print form?

The submission is on behalf of a number of US media outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and MacMillan (US), as well as Human Rights Watch, Global Witness US and Greenpeace International.

Based on article from bbfc.co.uk

The uncut UK Blu-ray is available at UK Amazon
The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon
The uncut US Blu-ray is available at US Amazon

The Hangover is a 2009 US/Germany comedy by Todd Philips

The US Unrated Version was submitted for the 2009 Warner Blu-ray noted as the Extended Version.

The BBFC explained:

The Hangover is a comedy about a group of friends who lose the groom during a stag night trip to Las Vegas. This version contains material not featured in the cinema release and was classified 18 for strong sexual images.

Over the film’s end credits there are a series of still photographs showing the activities of the stag night. Three of these pictures show one character apparently having fellatio performed on him in a lift. In the version classified 15 for cinema exhibition, these images were pixilated. However in the version submitted for classification as a video recording, the images are unpixelated and contravene the BBFC’s Guidelines on sex at 15 which state that sexual activity may be portrayed without strong detail. At 18 any more explicit images of sexual activity need to be justified by context and in this case the images are not particularly clear, are very brief, and illustrate in comic fashion the debauched nature of the stag night that the film focuses on.

The film contains many jokes about various characters having sex with others including references to a woman being grossed out by semen and sight of a used condom being thrown around a car. There are also some visual images of bare breasted women dancing at a lap dancing club and a scene of full frontal male nudity in a non-sexual context when a man leaps out of a car boot with no clothes on. These sex references would have been passed at 15 as the guidelines at that category allow strong verbal references to sexual behaviour.

The film also contains multiple use of strong language throughout, all of which would have been passed at 15 where BBFC Guidelines state that there may be frequent use.

The film contains some comic scenes of violence, including men being hit with a metal pole and tasered by the police, as well as some verbal drug references alluding to the men inadvertently taking rohypnol and still photographs of one man snorting some cocaine.

Previously the Theatrical Version was passed 15 for the 2009 cinema release and 2009 Warner DVD

Based on article from technology.timesonline.co.uk

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, the latest in a series of first-person war games, features bloody conflict. It is so realistic that at some points a warning offers players the option to skip scenes.

In the course of the ten hours or so the game will take to complete in solo mode, the player will assume a variety of roles in a global war against Russian ultranationalists led by Vladimir Makarov.

One of the most controversial of these is an episode in which a character must choose whether to kill unarmed civilians in a Russian airport to infiltrate a terrorist group successfully.

The scene is ’so shocking’ that Activision, the game’s distributor, issued a statement. At the beginning of the game, there are two ‘checkpoints’ where the player is advised that some people may find an upcoming segment disturbing. These checkpoints can’t be disabled, it said. Modern Warfare 2 is a fantasy action game designed for intense, realistic game play that mirrors real life conflicts, much like epic, action movies. It is appropriately rated 18 for violent scenes.

Nutters, however, have accused Activision of being disingenuous. Warnings of extreme content had a strong appeal to younger players, they said.

Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East, told The Times: I am absolutely shocked by the level of violence in this game and am particularly concerned about how realistic the game itself looks. Whilst I appreciate that this game has been certified as an 18, I firmly believe that certain levels of violence should not be made into interactive entertainment. This would include acting as a terrorist, as is the case here, or violence against women. I will be raising this issue in Parliament on Monday.

Based on article from bbfc.co.uk

The Stepfather is a 2009 US horror by Nelson McCormick

The 2009 cinema release was passed 15 with the comment: During post-production, the distributor sought and was given advice on how to secure the desired classification. Following this advice, certain changes were made prior to submission.

The BBFC explained the 15 rating further:

The Stepfather is a psychological horror/thriller about a serial killer who finds his victims by marrying young divorced or widowed women with children. It has been passed 15 for strong psychological threat and menace and violence.

The main protagonist in the film commits a number of murders in order to protect his anonymity and, while these murders do not contain strong detail, they are all strong in terms of the brutal and callous nature of the killings. There is also an unrelenting sense of threat and menace as the killer’s new family start to suspect him and, consequently, place themselves in danger. The Guidelines at 12A only allow for moderate physical and psychological threat and these scenes are stronger and more disturbing and, consequently, most appropriately placed at 15. Stronger and bloodier violence occurs at the film’s climax and contain some focus upon injuries and blood which also secure the 15 classification.

Thanks to pbr on the Melon Farmers Forum

The Coroners and Justice Bill has just completed its 3rd Reading on the House of Lords and will now go back to the Commons to review the Lords amendments.

There were no change to the dangerous drawings provisions though.

Anime fans in particular should surely be at great risk with state bullies contending that indeterminate age anime features under 18 year olds.

Based on article from dudleynews.co.uk

A Dudley cinema has backed out of showing a Birmingham gangland film.

Showcase Cinema at Castlegate, pulled 1 Day as the ramifications of a censorship row between West Midlands Police and the filmakers Vertigo Films rumble on.

Odeon in Birmingham were the first to announce they were not showing the movie, which was released last Friday, after taking police advice.

And now Showcase have followed suit, by pulling it from Midland cinemas.

Karen Fox, general manager of Showcase UK Theatres, said: Showcase has made the decision not to screen the film 1 Day at its cinemas in the West Midlands region.

However, we are screening the film in our other UK locations.

Despite claiming they were not trying to censor the film the police have admitted a police officer had contacted cinemas criticising the film.

The film’s director Penny Woolcock, said: Censoring this film is short sighted, shameful and lets a lot of people down: Even if 1 Day did glamorise gun violence, which it certainly does not, I do not think it is the function of the local police to go round saying what films should be shown and which ones shouldn’t. She added: Let people decide for themselves.

The uncut region 2 DVD is available at UK Amazon
The uncut UK Blu-ray is available at UK Amazon
The uncut region 1 DVD is available at US Amazon
The uncut US Blu-ray is available at US Amazon

Near Dark is a 1987 US vampire film by Kathryn Bigelow

The BBFC cuts were waived for the 2003 Anchor Bay DVD and 2006 Optimum DVD/Blu-ray.

Previously, the 1988 EIV video was cut by 14sFrom cuts details on IMDb

• Diamondback opening and closing a butterfly knife repeatedly before slitting the barmaid’s throat
• Jesse and Severen putting the barman’s body on the bar and smashing bottles of spirits over and around him to fuel the fire while Severen quips Hey, bartender salad.

The 1987 cinema release was passed 18 uncut

Review from UK Amazon: Masterpiece

This is a masterpiece of a film from director Kathryn Bigelow. It has been described by Ms Bigelow as a story of two families, a daylight family and a night family; others have called it a cross between a horror film, an action film and a western. It is a recorded fact that Ms Bigelow had wanted to make a western, but because westerns weren’t popular at the time, it was decided to turn it into a horror film with a basic western feel.

Caleb has been taken by Mae and her vampire family – Jesse Hooker (Lance Henriksen), Severen (Bill Paxton), Diamondback (Jeanette Goldstein) and Homer (Joshua Miller). He doesn’t want to kill, but his body now needs blood to survive and we watch as Caleb’s internal fight what he knows is wrong and what his needs tell him to do.

As the film builds to its climax Caleb must make the decision between his two families, between day and night.

Whether James Cameron had an influence in the casting of the main characters (he was at the time that the film was made married to Ms Bigelow).

The vampire family consists of Lance Henriksen (Aliens’ android Bishop), Bill Paxton (PFC Hudson from Aliens) and Jeanette (Vasquez) Goldstein all give excellent performances, but, once again, it is Bill Paxton who delivers the most memorable performance of the entire cast.

This film is thoroughly enjoyable. One of the greatest vampire movies ever, though interestingly the term vampire is never used in the film itself.

Based on article from asa.org.uk

A national press ad for the film Antichrist, which appeared in The Times, The Guardian and The Independent, showed a naked man and woman having sex. They seemed to be lying at the base of a tree, from which hands protruded. Text stated WHEN NATURE TURNS EVIL, TRUE TERROR AWAITS … 18 CONTAINS STRONG REAL SEX, BLOODY VIOLENCE AND SELF-MUTILATION. The ad contained several quotes from reviews, including … CINEMA AT ITS MOST EXTREME … THE STRANGEST AND MOST ORIGINAL HORROR MOVIE OF THE YEAR … NOTHING CAN PREPARE YOU FOR THE EXPERIENCE OF ANTICHRIST. NOTHING … THE MOST SHOCKING FILM IN THE HISTORY OF THE CANNES FILM FESTIVAL ….

7 complainants, some of whom said the ad’s imagery was pornographic, thought the depiction of a naked couple having sex was offensive and inappropriate for publication in a newspaper where it might be seen by children.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld

The ASA considered that the ad, which had a dark tone, was unlikely to cause sexual excitement and was therefore not pornographic.

We were of the view that The Times, The Guardian and The Independent were read mostly by adults and, although the possibility of children seeing the ad in those publications could not be ruled out, we considered it unlikely. If children did see the ad, we considered it was not particularly explicit and the dream-like context, introduced by the hands protruding from the tree (or roots), had the effect of making the image of the naked couple seem removed from reality. We noted the film itself contained graphic scenes of sex, and considered that readers would understand that the image of the naked couple in the ad was relevant to the advertised product.

We considered that the ad did not go too far in its depiction of the film’s content, and was unlikely to be seen as irresponsible or cause serious or widespread offence to readers of The Times, The Guardian and The Independent.