India : Muslim family forced to leave theatre for not standing during national anthem

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Both sides were arseholes if you ask me.

Perhaps, but nowhere close to the same degree.

The family chose to commit a passive, low-key act (again, we do not have their side of the story on what happened and why they chose to do whatever).

The rest of the audience confronting them chose to inflame the situation and actively and aggressively confront a family with a little child while seated in a movie theater - that is 'arsehole-ism' to a much higher degree. There can be no excuse for such behavior.

You dont walk into a theatre with lots of other people there and stay sat down, expecting nothing to happen when a national anthem is playing.

Why not?

If you are going to be highly discourteous on purpose (and break the law at the same time too), you invite people to be the same to you.

The only people 'discourteous' to others were the members of the audience confronting the family. The family did not accost anyone - it is the rabble-rousers in the audience that chose to incite and inflame.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your position on this issue is itself 'radicalism' and extremist.

Not at all. It is the norm, except in the hyper-sensitised west.

 

[Nilgiri]

The concept of harm is multi faceted.

Anyone breaking the law is causing harm to society. Not all harm involves physical hurt either.

A show of disrespect to the nation is a show of disrespect to you and your family. To everything you value in this Nation. To all those heroes who have died for this Nation.

If you have somebody who has died for the nation in YOUR family you might feel different when you see someone disrespect that nation. Its an insult to their memory and it makes a mockery of their sacrifice.

Law has the FINAL Say. In between we all get to have our say. Remember that.

I didn't say the people in the cinema had no right to get angry. They should have directed the anger in the right way though.

Taunting and harrasing the people is understandable for those that got very upset (we are all human beings)....but what first should have been done is call the management and the police to get the adults of this family booked....not get around them like a mob and start something very unsightly.

What constitutes emotional harm for one, may not do so for another. Thats why I draw the line (for actual instantaneous intervention) at physical harm, because everyone feels that no matter who he/she is.

If you do a secret private ballot, I bet not 100% of everyone in the cinema would say they felt emotional harm from the family staying seated anyway.....so the issue is always going to be one that should be handled in a strictly legal way.....not the vigilante way.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So you even get hurt debating about it on an open forum. I would never in my senses like to visit such a country. This is intolerance at it's peak.

Hurt? Where did you dig that up? And when had you planned to visit? Why cancel a visit never planned?

By the way, although I strongly disapprove of a thousand and one things about Pakistan, I intend to visit the country, and am not waiting for a plebiscite to approve my visit. If you wish to visit, do so; if you don't, please yourself. But please don't bring it in when discussing a topic. Keep the sentiment out.

Just stick to the basic lesson and imbibe it: don't teach a democratic nation what is democratic and what is not. Not unless you practise it at a higher level still.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But, as you said, you have not heard their side of the story. It really doesn't matter what their side of the story is. If they have problems with the respect to be shown to the anthem, they need to stay away from functions where it is to be played. It's as simple as that.

This is really the key part - 'their side of the story' is absolutely important and it absolutely does matter. We are dealing with laws here (assuming this is a law vs a theater rule), and a basic tenet of laws in most civilized societies is the assumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right of the accused to argue their position.

To flippantly declare that 'it doesn't really matter what their side of the story is' is itself a remark disrespectful of the constitutional and legal structures, processes and protections that are so painfully built over time.

 

[Sky lord]

Anyone showing disrespect to the national anthem of their country need to be booked under the law. I hate radicals, in all forms, Hindu ones, Muslim ones and specially stupid ones such as this particular family.

Concise, to the point, and exactly what needed to be said. Respect.

 

[Nilgiri]

Perhaps, but nowhere close to the same degree.

The family chose to commit a passive, low-key act (again, we do not have their side of the story on what happened and why they chose to do whatever).

The rest of the audience confronting them chose to inflame the situation and actively and aggressively confront a family with a little child while seated in a movie theater - that is 'arsehole-ism' to a much higher degree. There can be no excuse for such behavior.

Do we have the full side for the vigilante crowd then? You are automatically assuming a lot here. We have just this post-mortem video thats going viral to judge things on.

It was quite obviously a conscious decision by this family to stay seated, how are we to say they didnt do this on purpose with the specific intention of causing a ruckus?...or if they indulged in whatever else beforehand? None of us where there to see all the details leading up to what we see in the video.

I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to either side and qualifying which side was less in the wrong from what is in the video here....until I get the absolute full picture.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Laws derived from constitution need to be obeyed.

You're misinterpreting the issue and the argument - laws need to be obeyed, the enforcement of laws is the task of the government and institutions assigned that authority by the government, and any accusations of violations of laws is balanced with the right of the accused to defend themselves and conditional to a basic tenet of the assumption that the accused is innocent till proven guilty.

Your refusal to unequivocally condemn the behavior of audience is not dissimilar to religious extremists in Pakistan who, when all else fails, choose to hide behind arguments such as 'Ahmadis and alleged blasphemers are responsible for the violence against them because they choose to not obey the laws of the land'. The point here is not that laws should not be obeyed and the constitution not followed in amending/repealing laws that are ridiculous or outright repugnant, but that constitution in civilized societies provides protections and rights to the accused.

The family refused to stand up - OK, take a cell-phone video, inform management/LEA's - what punitive actions does the law provide for? By whom? Conditional to what? Is a mere complaint by multiple audience members sufficient for punitive action to be taken under the law? Then what chance do poor Ahmadi's and alleged blasphemers have in Pakistan to defend themselves?

There are no if's and but's about it. If you don't enforce them, then you get laskhar's and jamat's running amuck in your backyard. Therefore, I, having a harsh stance against the 'few' radicals, in essence brings the wider population in conformity. My form of 'constitutional' radicalism, in essence is a blessing in disguise.... you, however, are entitled to your own pov, law permitting.

Unfortunately, your position here dovetails with those of the Lashkar's and Jamaat's running around inciting mob violence and hatred against Ahmadis and alleged blasphemers.

 

[Sky lord]

This is really the key part - 'their side of the story' is absolutely important and it absolutely does matter. We are dealing with laws here (assuming this is a law vs a theater rule), and a basic tenet of laws in most civilized societies is the assumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right of the accused to argue their position.

To flippantly declare that 'it doesn't really matter what their side of the story is' is itself a remark disrespectful of the constitutional and legal structures, processes and protections that are so painfully built over time.

If someone hacked your bank account and stole your money would it matter what their side of the story is?...maybe you are rich and they really. Needed the money.

The law is the law, you have to obey it, whatever excuses you may have handy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not at all. It is the norm, except in the hyper-sensitised west.

The West isn't 'hyper-sensitized', the East has yet to reach the level of civility and civilizational evolution the West has already attained.

If someone hacked your bank account and stole your money would it matter what their side of the story is?

Yes - it's called reporting the crime to the police, letting law enforcement investigate and build a case, and for the prosecution to try the case, with the accused assumed innocent until the prosecution successfully establishes guilt.

The law is the law, you have to obey it, whatever excuses you may have handy.

What part of the law endorses mob violence and/or threats of violence and disturbing the public order (as those confronting the family did) to 'enforce standing up for the national anthem in a theater'?

 

[Mamsalaphala]

I didn't say the people in the cinema had no right to get angry. They should have directed the anger in the right way though.

Taunting and harrasing the people is understandable for those that got very upset (we are all human beings)....but what first should have been done is call the management and the police to get the adults of this family booked....not get around them like a mob and start something very unsightly.

What constitutes emotional harm for one, may not do so for another. Thats why I draw the line (for actual instantaneous intervention) at physical harm, because everyone feels that no matter who he/she is.

If you do a secret private ballot, I bet not 100% of everyone in the cinema would say they felt emotional harm from the family staying seated anyway.....so the issue is always going to be one that should be handled in a strictly legal way.....not the vigilante way.

Its not about Anger, its about Disrespect. More importantly its about the Law.

No one is going to wait for disrespect to be proved in the court of law. That is a childish and naive argument. Does not work in the real life.

In the real world, if somebody grabs your wife's @ss you immediately slap that man and beat the cr@p our of him (if you can) or at least land a blow or two. You do not wait to call the police and then file a police complain, an FIR and then spend the next 6 years making the rounds of courts with your wife.

If you are going to wait in this life for other people to come around and solve your problem then you have a very short life and a long wait ahead of you. You are required to deal with your own problem and many times deal with problems of immediate concern without waiting for back up or the perfect solution.

The men who acted in the theatre are the men who act first. They are the doers. They are the kind of men I will hire to work for me. Not the guys who will say, sorry saar ... the police is coming,please wait.

You can always have a theoretical discussion and then there is the practical aspect of life.

If you are caught between Thinking about Acting and Action, my advice will be to ACT first. More things get done that way and end of the day, you earn respect. Might not make you popular, but will certainly make you reliable and bankable. That will serve you well in both professional and personal life.

Vigilantism exist for a reason and in a "shame" society like ours, they are relatively unnecessary. So when you do see it happen you need to understand they are deeper reason to it. Some you see, many you don't see.

Wisdom is to understand what is not obvious, many times even unspeakable.

 

[danger007]

They should have stand... and that bald head gone beyond his limits..

 

[Sky lord]

Fcuk off idiot. Nation comes before anything else.

Dude, just ignore that guy. I don't think anyone reads his posts anyway, don't give yourself blood pressure.

 

[Joe Shearer]

NEEDS OF MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF FEW

No, I can't agree with that. It's not about needs, it's about laws and it's about the right of institutions to manage their institutions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

NEEDS OF MANY OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF FEW

The 'many' had no tangible 'needs' in the situation under discussion that were under threat of any kind.

This is the kind of 'need' that hyper-sensitive Muslims complain and foam at the mouth about, when the 'sensitivities of Muslims' is 'hurt' because of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. I don't support the 'needs' of those Muslims anymore than supporting 'radical nationalist sensitivities' over something like the OP.