Thursday, December 14, 2017

Welcome To ALLAHWOOD

From here and here:


Industry Panel Suggests Ways to Better Represent Muslims in Film and TV

12:33 PM PST 12/11/2017 by Courtney Idasetima
Courtesy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council
Writers Guild Foundation and Muslim Public Affairs Council panel

"It's no secret that the industry has a knack for vilifying marginalized communities," said Sue Obeidi, director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council's Hollywood Bureau.

An industry panel discussed ways to avoid Muslim stereotypes in film and TV while also offering suggestions to ensure more authentic representations of Islam and Muslims in Hollywood at a recent event presented by the Writers Guild Foundation and the Hollywood Bureau of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
The MPAC's Hollywood Bureau consults with production companies on authentic portrayals of Muslims and connects companies with Muslim creatives in writers rooms to tell their own stories to ensure that the stories told on the screen are accurate.
The panel discussion, held Monday night at the WGAF/WGA headquarters in Los Angeles, included MPAC president Salam Al-Marayati, actor-writer Dan Milano (Robot Chicken, Greg the Bunny), creator/executive producer/writer Chris Keyser (Party of Five, The Last Tycoon, Tyrant), writer Sohrab Noshirvani (Dry River Road, Junkyard Dogs), producer Cherien Dabis (Empire, Quantico), and writer Y. Shireen Razack (Shadowhunters: The Mortal Instruments, Haven). Writer/producer Valerie C. Woods (Any Day Now, Soul Food) moderated the panel. 
"It's no secret that the industry has a knack for vilifying marginalized communities," said Sue Obeidi, director of the MPAC's Hollywood Bureau told The Hollywood Reporter. "However, we did notice that before Trump got into the White House, before he was even elected, representatives of the entertainment industry, television executives and creatives, reached out to us about creating Muslim characters, not your traditional 'bad-guy Arab villain Muslim,' but more authentic narratives.”
The Hollywood Bureau is currently consulting for Disney’s Aladdin (the upcoming live-action version), ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy,  Hulu’s The Looming Tower, NatGeo’s The State, Paramount/Amazon’s Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan and Nickelodeon’s Glitch Techs.
The MPAC’s ultimate goal is to get more Muslim creatives involved in the corporate structure.
“I want to make sure that to us [MPAC's Hollywood Bureau], ultimate success is not having a Muslim TV network, but to have Muslims at the helm of a major network, studio and production company," said Obeidi. "In order to really make a difference in the narrative, we cannot afford to be burning daylight by preaching to the choir. Muslims, like all other members of vulnerable communities, need to be in decision-making roles at major mainstream TV networks, studios and production companies, as well as showrunners and executive producers.”
Obeidi is hopeful that there will be a Muslim lead on a television drama and sitcom within the next few years.
Nickelodeon's new animated series Glitch Techs will feature a multiethnic cast, including a Muslim-American female character who will wear a hijab on the show. Glitch Techs writer David Anaxagoras originally created the character for another program, Amazon's Gortimer Gibbon's Life on Normal Street, but viewers never saw the character because of the show's cancellation.
When developing Glitch Techs, the co-creators recognized the need to incorporate characters reflective of the viewing audience, whether they are background characters or main characters, so “someone somewhere [can look] for themselves on television," said Milano, who co-created the show with Eric Robles. The creators consulted with the MPAC to figure out how to accurately display an authenticity, even down to little behaviors.
“Even though we’re an animated show and they are trying to catch creatures, we want small things. We want to know that a stray hair came out of that hijab, and she had to tuck it behind her ear because that’s a human moment, that’s a practical moment, from everyday life,” said Milano.
Added Al-Marayati: “Five years ago and 10 years ago, we never thought we’d actually have an audience to talk to, but now, I think we should thank Donald Trump because we’re finally having a conversation, and it’s unfortunate that it had to take that to have that conversation, but hey, beggars can’t be choosers, so we welcome this opportunity.”

Islamist group helps Hollywood sanitize Islam in movies, television

FEBRUARY 8, 2011/CREEPING / 19 COMMENTS
The Islamist group MPAC continues its infiltration of Hollywood to ensure only sanitized portrayals of Islam and Muslims hit the big screens and television. “Else they will declare Jihad against Hollywood,” as one astute commenter wrote. After years of watching Muslims portrayed as terrorists in mainstream TV and movies, an advocacy group hopes to change … Continue readingIslamist group helps Hollywood sanitize Islam in movies, television

Islamists recruit screenwriters to spread Islam in Hollywood

OCTOBER 25, 2010/CREEPING / 25 COMMENTS
From the print media, to MSM news, to radio, and even in Hollywood, the reach of the Islamist tentacles is astounding. The pro-Hamas, pro-Hizbollah and vehemently anti-Israel group MPAC serves “as an information clearinghouse in Islam for the Hollywood community.” Could this be why we don’t see movies depicting Muslims as terrorists any more? As … Continue readingIslamists recruit screenwriters to spread Islam in Hollywood

‘Sesame Street’ Goes Sharia With Hijab-Clad Muppet

APRIL 9, 2016/CREEPING / 7 COMMENTS
How many young Afghan girls will be killed because of Zari? Source: ‘Sesame Street’ Unveils Hijab-Clad Muppet: ‘Zari’ Is A Feminist From Afghanistan – Breitbart Sesame Street unveiled a fresh face Thursday: a hijab-wearing Afghani Muppet named Zari who will teach kids about “girl empowerment, social and emotional wellbeing.” Zari will first appear in season five of Baghch-e-Simsim, which … Continue reading‘Sesame Street’ Goes Sharia With Hijab-Clad Muppet

Los Angeles Deputy Chief of Police Makes Outreach to Muslims Part of His Mission

MARCH 9, 2015/CREEPING / 5 COMMENTS
His primary mission. via Los Angeles Police Veteran Makes Outreach to Muslims Part of His Mission. h/t Iron Burka LOS ANGELES — On a damp and dreary Saturday two months ago, several hundred mourners gathered outside City Hall here for a memorial service honoring Dr. Maher Hathout. Born in Egypt and trained as a cardiologist, … Continue readingLos Angeles Deputy Chief of Police Makes Outreach to Muslims Part of His Mission

Al Jazeera America lays off dozens, disbands sports as advertisers flee

APRIL 22, 2014/CREEPING / 7 COMMENTS
Keep up the pressure! via FFA Your support of Florida Family Association’s efforts is making a difference. The Hollywood Reporter headline states Dozens Laid Off at Al Jazeera America and subhead line reports The cable news network is disbanding its sports unit and scaling back its social media program, “The Stream.”  Click here to read … Continue readingAl Jazeera America lays off dozens, disbands sports as advertisers flee

ABC Television – banned Saudi kidnap pilot – partners with Muslim group on (dawah) training

MARCH 30, 2014/CREEPING / 8 COMMENTS
Dawah and dhimmitude at ABC via Florida Family Association. CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) has pressured Disney to cancel an ABC Family show titled Alice in Arabia. The program is about an American teen who is kidnapped by her Saudi Arabian extended family and must “find a way to return home while surviving life … Continue readingABC Television – banned Saudi kidnap pilot – partners with Muslim group on (dawah) training

Retired LAPD Captain exposes Deputy Chief of Police’s Muslim Brotherhood ties

SEPTEMBER 9, 2013/CREEPING / 9 COMMENTS
via Islam Captures LAPD | Walid Shoebat.com NYPD and LAPD Divided by The Nation of Islam By Bob Michael LAPD Police Detective Capt. (Ret) (Below is a copy of a letter I sent for publication in LAPD police officer association’s monthly paper, The Thin Blue Line. I have had prior papers published. This was denied … Continue readingRetired LAPD Captain exposes Deputy Chief of Police’s Muslim Brotherhood ties

Brotherhood-linked Muslim Group Says it Was Consulted on Choice of L.A. Police Chief

MARCH 10, 2012/CREEPING / 17 COMMENTS
A continuation of the Mecha, La Raza, Hamas brotherhood in LA? via The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report » MPAC Says It Was Consulted On Choice Of L.A. Police Chief. The Muslim Public Affair Council (MPAC) has announced that the Mayor of Los Angeles has involved MPAC, along with other organizations, in the process of … Continue readingBrotherhood-linked Muslim Group Says it Was Consulted on Choice of L.A. Police Chief

Video: Islamic Saudi Academy hearings

JULY 14, 2009/CREEPING / 1 COMMENT
Atlas Shrugs has video of the hearings that took place last night on the Saudi Islamic Academy expansion in Virginiastan. I watched the whole hearing tonight. An abomination. The taqiyya and the advancement of this ideology are enabled by our government officials. The great Americans who stood up and spoke so eloquently are to break … Continue reading
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, December 2, 2017

Canada's Supreme Court "Judges" Criminalize Hurting Criminals' Feelings!

From here:

Supreme Court upholds Canada's hate speech laws in case involving anti-gay crusader

Canada's human rights hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a landmark judgment.

Ted Jacob/Postmedia News

Canada’s human rights hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit on freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in a landmark judgment.
The judgment in the case of William Whatcott of Saskatchewan reaffirms the Canadian approach to hate speech, that it can be limited by law to address the problem of hate speech, unlike the American approach, in which speech cannot be limited except in the most extreme circumstances.
In upholding a definition of hatred first crafted by the Supreme Court in 1991, the current justices ruled that the hate speech section of Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code addresses a pressing and substantial issue, and is proportional to its objective of “tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination.”
The court struck out some strange language in the law, which bans speech that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” identifiable groups — language that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission said was already ignored in practice.
But it upheld the controversial legal concept of speech that is “likely to expose” certain groups to hatred.
That's insane! "Hatred" is only someone else's internal emotions! If their proposed judge-made "law" had said the speech is likely to expose certain people (not groups) to violence, it might have made at least some sense - but they didn't, so it doesn't!
The Saskatchewan law, which is similar to others in Alberta, B.C., the Northwest Territories and federally, “appropriately balances the fundamental values underlying freedom of expression with competing Charter rights and other values essential to a free and democratic society, in this case a commitment to equality and respect for group identity and the inherent dignity owed to all human beings,” wrote Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein for the court.
There is no "balance" between " competing essential values" and "rights," you morons! Especially not a commitment to "equality" and "respect for group identity" (gang membership) or any "inherent dignity owed to all human beings" (i.e: Don't hurt the criminals' feelings by notifying them that you disapprove of their crimes! It's "hurtful")!
“Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect,” the judges decided.
Exactly as I just noted: It's now illegal to "harm" an immoral criminal by accusing it of it's "crimes" no matter how immoral they might have been! The Truth often hurts, so using it against someone in denial of their own culpability and guilt is now "illegal!" 
The judges reinstated Mr. Whatcott’s conviction by a hate speech tribunal in the case of two anti-gay fliers he distributed, but overturned it in the case of two others.
"I have to follow Christ first. What I have said is true. There’s not a sentence that I retract, so likely future fliers will be more of the same" Mr/ Whatcott said.

As advice to future hate tribunals, the judges offered three main pieces of guidance.
First, these laws must be applied objectively, which is difficult in the case of subjective emotion, though not impossible, the judges ruled. The key is to focus on the effects of hate speech, not the intent of the speaker.
Focusing on the emotional effects of "hate" speech is the very definition of subjectivity, because taking offense at others' words (true or false) is purely an individual choice!
Second, hate must be understood to be the extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification,” but nothing less.
Exactly: it's a display of someone else's emotions - which cannot cause physical harm.
“This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects,” they wrote.
So they again postulate that there's some sort of objectively-definable level of "hate" which anyone can experience, which will "trigger" them into committing violent acts?! Not even! They only worry about "discrimination" - in other words: using one's brains!
Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.
In other words, does complaining about a criminals' crimes increase their risk of being accused, arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and punished for their crimes, or not?!
“The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination,” they decided.
"Legislative efforts to reduce or eliminate discrimination" = no free-thinking allowed!
“The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm,” the judgement reads. Group rights now legally trump individual ones!
Christopher Pike for National Post

In an interview, Mr. Whatcott said he will continue his activism and pamphleting, knowing the price may be high.
A financial penalty of $17,500 is to be reinstated against him, and disregarding a tribunal order to stop spreading hate speech can lead to contempt of court and jail.
In other words, if someone else takes offense at your words, we will jail you for them!
“I’m certainly weighing this, because it’s going to be at great personal cost to me,” Mr. Whatcott said. “I have to follow Christ first. What I have said is true. There’s not a sentence that I retract, so likely future fliers will be more of the same.”
He contrasted “spurious” Holocaust denial, often a target of hate tribunals, with his “medical facts” about homosexuality.
“I think it’s a dark day for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and more profoundly for me, freedom to speak the truth. It’s a very dark day for Canada,” he said.
He said he expected a split decision.
Mark Freiman, a former deputy Attorney-General of Ontario who argued at the Supreme Court on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the ruling was a “reaffirmation” of principles first articulated by the Supreme Court 20 years ago, in the case of hate hotline operator John Ross Taylor.
Those principles — that it is constitutionally valid to limit a fundamental right, in this case limiting speech that exposes people to hatred based on their membership in a group — were often lost in the rancorous debate over hate speech law, he said.
“I think because the debate tends to focus on what group is being maligned, we sometimes don’t actually think through what the implications are. That’s why the court is always very careful to separate the principle from any political debate. What’s involved is not a political debate, what’s involved is an attack on people based on the fact that they are members of a group. It’s not just stereotyping, but it’s demonization,” Mr. Freiman said. 
It depends if the group or gang membership is voluntary or not, or if the crime-gang membership, even if involuntary, denotes a threat to others regardless. It should always be legal to defend one's self and/or innocent others, even from persons who are being coerced into threatening one's health and life (for instance, in the case of muslims who are born into the death-cult, but who remain an existential threat to all non-muslims, even though they did not join islam voluntarily).
He said Section 13, a similar federal law against internet hate speech, is effectively upheld constitutionally by this ruling, but could still be repealed according to a private member’s bill that is now before the Senate.
Fortunately, it was repealed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper - which obviously had no effect on the criminal precedents set by these Supreme Court "Judge's" ruling.
“If a government believes that these protections are not necessary, it has the right to revoke them,” he said.
Damned right they should - and they should also fire and jail you for making them, too!
Richard Moon, a University of Windsor constitutional law expert, said the court’s focus on the objective effects of hate speech, rather than the subjective intent of the speaker, is problematic. That's because the effects are really also only subjective in nature!
“I think it’s still a problem not to talk about intent in this context,” he said.
He said the most extreme forms of hate speech caught by these laws are described in terms of their objective effects on a target group, even though strict proof is not required. But the less extreme forms of speech that should be protected are described in subjective terms, like “offense” or “humiliation.” Inciting violence is already illegal.
That avoids the “line-drawing problem,” he said, and the ruling effectively “pretends that the line [between hate speech and free speech] can be drawn brightly by framing the harm of extreme and less extreme forms of speech in different terms… That just avoids the problem.”
“Any decision maker [at a tribunal] has the same problem they always have,” he said.
“The Supreme Court missed an excellent opportunity to rein in the power of various human rights commissions and tribunals to censor the expression of unpopular beliefs and opinions,” said Chris Schafer, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which intervened in the case. 
Worse than that, they committed "law-crime!" (or Crime Under Colour or cover of Law)!
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)