After Vishwaroopam, Maniratnam’s Kadal faces the heat



by @dinakaran

Emboldened by the Tamil Nadu Government’s caving in before Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamental organisations have now called for a ban on Maniratnam’s Kadal.

According to reports, several Christian organisations, including the Indian Christian Democratic Party (Christhuva Jananayaga Katchi), have said the film had objectionable scenes referring to Christianity and depicted Christians in bad light. They have reportedly met the Chennai City Police Commissioner.

They have warned that the protests would be intensified if “necessary action” (translated into deleting scenes) is not taken.

It remains to be seen if the Jayalalithaa Government uses the same “not enough police” argument to ban Kadal.

But Maniratnam is likely to be happy about the controversy. The movie has been ripped apart by critics and is doing badly. A round of controversy can only do good for the film.

Update: According to The Hindu, Mr Christumurthy, the founder of the party, the references to Jesus Christ implied that Satan had won.

He also said references to the blood of Jesus Christ were unacceptable and wanted the scene in which Christ’s photo is thrown down and smashed to be deleted.

According to The New Indian Express, the group met Police Commissioner S. George and pointed out six scenes that were “offensive to Christians”.

The group said if these scenes were not removed and the film allowed to continue in theatres, they would call on Christians across the State and create a mas stir — which could threaten the law and order situation.

Prominent Church and Christian leaders, however have remained silent and have not supported this claim.

christudoss has asked that cases be registered against Maniratnam and the Censor Board.

Did Tamil Nadu’s Advocate General go overboard to please Amma?

By @dinakaran

Mr Soli Sorabjee in The New Indian Express ‘There are limits to an advocate’s licence too’, says:

The Tamil Nadu Advocate-General Mr Navaneetha Krishnan

The Tamil Nadu Advocate-General Mr Navaneetha Krishnan

“(Another) disquieting feature is the Advocate General Navaneetha Krishnan’s statement in the course of his oral arguments before the court that the “certification process is a scam”. Advocate Sankarasubbu appearing for the groups supporting the ban stated that “the board members are purchasable commodities”. These statements, unless they are based on cogent material placed before the court, are grossly defamatory and reprehensible. There are limits to an advocate’s licence pleading his case before the court even though the advocate may be the advocate general of the state, in which case there is a greater obligation to refrain from making unsubstantiated allegations against a statutory body headed by a distinguished chairperson. Mr Advocate General, please remember, noblesse oblige.”

Why Jayalalithaa is wrong on Vishwaroopam

This is from an article by Soli Sorabjee in The New Indian Express ‘There are limits to an advocate’s licence too’. It shows why the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Ms J. Jayalalithaa was wrong when saying the State had the right to ban films. vishwaroopam

“If any group or body is dissatisfied with the board’s decision, it can adopt corrective remedies under the Act or file a writ petition in the high court. It is certainly not open to a dissatisfied party to threaten use of force or violence to stop the release of the movie. Far worse, it is for the state to justify the ban because of apprehension of breach of law and order. This issue was squarely decided on March 31, 1989, by the Supreme Court in the case of a movie Ore Oru Gramathile. In that case, the state’s plea was that in view of the threats of demonstrations and violence by certain organisations and political bodies who were offended by the theme of the movie, exhibition of the movie would create serious law and order problems and hence the ban. The Supreme Court was “amused yet troubled” by the state’s stand. Justice Jagannatha Shetty delivering the landmark judgment of the Court observed that “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation”. The court further held that “it is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression” which “cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people”.”