Cambodia Fumes At 'disrespectful' Thai Ghost Movie

[Sheryl]

I have read your post three times now and I am non the wiser what you are trying to say!

I dont think the poster you were arguing with actually wanted the film banned anyway!! Just a little sensitivity shown! I don't necessarily agree with banning things - but I do think we have the right to complain and criticise others judgement and taste - and that is what we are doing.

es, precisely -- neither I nor any other poster I read advocated censorship. neither have the Cambodians -- either government or public -- asked Thailand to ban the film to my knowledge. They did choose to ban it in Cambodia but as i tried to explain, there are some compelling reasons to do that which have nothing to do with the various things mentioned in her post.

What I have been trying to explain, apparently withoyut much success, is that the whole fuss is not so much about the movie as it is about Thai-Cambodian relations in general. It is certainly not about the Khmer Rouge per se. If this same movie had been made by, say, Japan, there would have been little or no response. It drew the response it did because it was produced by Thais and hence touched a sore spot. The complaints made by the Cambodians had little to do with attachment to images etc but a lot to do with their past and present negative experiences with Thais, and speaking out on this topic was their way of reminding the Thais that they (the Cambodians) are people, with sensitivities and feelings and pride just like the Thais. Which, I regret to say, both the Thai government and many (of course, not all) Thais DO need reminding of. While the poster in question doesn't seem able to get this point, I think the Thais did. And responded appropriately to the underlying message/issue.

[elkangorito]

I don't think that this issue is about 'government'. I do think it is about the personal feelings of a small number of people. See below;

Why would anyone want to react to an 'image'? My answer is 'fear'. The people who wish such 'images' to be 'banned' etc, believe that in some way, their life will be debilitated if such images are allowed. I would suggest that it is the individuals reaction to such images that are the most dangerous. I will further suggest that it is the 'individuals choice' to react to such images in a negative or positive way.

It is therefore obvious that these 'self offended' people are 'unwilling' to change. Instead, they want others to do the changing for them. This is a very sad situation...much sadder than the images of a movie. These people 'believe' that they are not in control of themselves. They believe that other things ARE in control of them. This is their CHOICE.

Instead of disenfranchising a large group of people who are not bothered by such images, maybe the 'self offended' ones could be encouraged to believe that they ARE in control of their own feelings & thus, a movie (image) censorship is not required? This is not a difficult suggestion & it will certainly help to bring peace to all. On the other hand, to sympathetically endorse their 'self offense', will help these people to believe that they are powerless & otherwise vulnerable.

Censorship will never bring back the dead. Nor will it change the past.

If people can realise that RESPECT & LOVE 'lives in this moment' & the past cannot be changed, unless the individual CHOOSES to believe otherwise, the world will be a better place. This ability is very much within the abilities of all humans. Those who refuse to change must learn to live with their DECISION.

CHANGE is hardly ever a problem. The perceived inability to change IS a problem for all of us, since CHANGE is ALWAYS possible. This is a matter of CHOICE & not censorship.

[kat]

nuts...

The Cambodian Gov't has to complain .... ok

The Thai government has to say ... We are sorry you are offended by a film company that is here in Thailand.

There it ends ... The film company didn't break the law ... they just have a tacky concept for a movie ... and it has enough bite in the concept to make it timely and relevant.

Maybe the Cambodians will show someone how serious a topic this is to them BY ACTUALLY BRINGING SOME OF THE KR to trial

Do you mean the Cambodians, or Hun Sen or former KR proxies in the government? That's the beauty of free speech: people get to spout <deleted> that they know nothing about.

And tell me, is this nuts: a new movie is being marketed in the form of a game show, where teenage and redneck goons get to win a new pickup truck and rifle for every suspected gay male that they string up and lynch. It is a big hit in rural, hick areas, especially where there are no examples of positive gay life. All in the name of fun, and free speech and all, JD.

Free speech is both a right and a responsibility. When it intrudes on the rights of others it is no longer a right. Blindly advocating it as if it is a god-given right to endager or devalue others is equivalent to thinking that the right to drive means mowing down others. There is a reason for driver's education, and the licensing of guns.

I don't think that this issue is about 'government'. I do think it is about the personal feelings of a small number of people. See below;

Why would anyone want to react to an 'image'? My answer is 'fear'. The people who wish such 'images' to be 'banned' etc, believe that in some way, their life will be debilitated if such images are allowed. I would suggest that it is the individuals reaction to such images that are the most dangerous. I will further suggest that it is the 'individuals choice' to react to such images in a negative or positive way.

It is therefore obvious that these 'self offended' people are 'unwilling' to change. Instead, they want others to do the changing for them. This is a very sad situation...much sadder than the images of a movie. These people 'believe' that they are not in control of themselves. They believe that other things ARE in control of them. This is their CHOICE.

Instead of disenfranchising a large group of people who are not bothered by such images, maybe the 'self offended' ones could be encouraged to believe that they ARE in control of their own feelings & thus, a movie (image) censorship is not required? This is not a difficult suggestion & it will certainly help to bring peace to all. On the other hand, to sympathetically endorse their 'self offense', will help these people to believe that they are powerless & otherwise vulnerable.

Censorship will never bring back the dead. Nor will it change the past.

If people can realise that RESPECT & LOVE 'lives in this moment' & the past cannot be changed, unless the individual CHOOSES to believe otherwise, the world will be a better place. This ability is very much within the abilities of all humans. Those who refuse to change must learn to live with their DECISION.

CHANGE is hardly ever a problem. The perceived inability to change IS a problem for all of us, since CHANGE is ALWAYS possible. This is a matter of CHOICE & not censorship.

Nice speech and all, but your logic is off. Great changes have occured in societies that question the selection of images and speech, especially in regards to racism. If these images were never challenged, positive change would never have occurred, and entire societies would still be walking around calling and representing gay and lesbians as insane, and black people and other minorities as less than human. You talk about individuals choosing to change, but how much of that choice is their own when they only see certain representations in the media?

In fact, you are dead wrong. It has only been through challenges to these images and assumptions of collective institutions that change has occurred among the individuals of those societies.

I don't believe in censorship. I believe in education and debate. However, I also believe that someone who carelessly shouts fire in a crowded public place should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[jdinasia]

lol Kat ....

Sure ... let them make a movie ... it'll never get marketted but sure! After all Phelps (the guy/family/church behind the protests at funerals of AIDS victims and Matt Shepard's killer's trial and Matt's funeral ... and not at soldiers funerals in the US) got airplay.

and yes NUTS ...

Sell your PC stuff to someone that is buying ... the same people that refuse to bring the culprits of the KR massacres to trial have very little moral authority.

Like I said ... the movie is tacky ... truly poor taste .. but yes Freedom counts more

[kat]

Ok JD - YOU can go see the red-neck movie about hunting gay/lesbian suspects - I certainly would not.

I said free speech is a right and a responsibility, but that is from a Western mentality. In most of the world, it is actually a privilege that very few get to use.

*edit: Quote "Sure ... let them make a movie ... it'll never get marketted but sure! After all Phelps (the guy/family/church behind the protests at funerals of AIDS victims and Matt Shepard's killer's trial and Matt's funeral ... and not at soldiers funerals in the US) got airplay."

Why do you think it would never be marketed? And why do you think the funerals of soldier's are not shown?

Actually JD, I'm not even PC anymore, I just like the facts. And oh yeah, I like living in a society where human rights are the law.

Edited May 18, 2006 by kat

[jdinasia]

Ok JD - YOU can go see the red-neck movie about hunting gay/lesbian suspects - I certainly would not.

I said free speech is a right and a responsibility, but that is from a Western mentality. In most of the world, it is actually a privilege that very few get to use.

*edit: Quote "Sure ... let them make a movie ... it'll never get marketted but sure! After all Phelps (the guy/family/church behind the protests at funerals of AIDS victims and Matt Shepard's killer's trial and Matt's funeral ... and not at soldiers funerals in the US) got airplay."

Why do you think it would never be marketed? And why do you think the funerals of soldier's are not shown?

Actually JD, I'm not even PC anymore, I just like the facts. And oh yeah, I like living in a society where human rights are the law.

I wouldn't be made ... because it wouldn't be marketable. No major theater chain/distributor would touch it ... BUT I'd be OK with the choice to make it ... and for people to choose to play it ... and for the protests that follow. And yes ... you ARE PC ... it's not a big deal ... you have every right to be ... but forcing other people to be PC tramples on their rights. This is a film ... it doesn't violate anyone's rights ... it is just tacky ... However .... the PC folks would make being tacky just plain illegal ... Exactly whose rights are being violated by this tacky movie? (as opposed to the victims of the KR's atrocities that are still dieing without seeing the people that did it come to trial?

Strangely your shot at gays through Matt is particularly relevant to me as I am from Denver and was part of the only active gay group in Wy ... went to the campout every year etc. He's one of only 2 people I know personally that have been murdered. (The other was a Tranny in Texas) I would actually be happy to see a movie like the one you mentioned made ... would serve as more grist for the mill to help get better Hate Crimes legislation!

[kat]

"I wouldn't be made ... because it wouldn't be marketable. No major theater chain/distributor would touch it ... BUT I'd be OK with the choice to make it ..."

It wouldn't be marketable or produced because it would cause a major uproar and lose money. Is it censorship, pc gone mad, or simply a more educated and conscientous society? I'm not forcing anyone to be PC - in fact that is a category that you stuck me in for your own convienence. According to your argument I am PC because I am advocating censorship of this movie, which I am not.

However, I do not view a society where anything goes as particularly liberal or tolerant. I never asked for this movie to be censored, but I do think it should be loudly criticized for what it is, and I do not think the complaints of the Cambodian government are trivial.

Secondly, how on earth is my example a "shot at gays"? You accuse me of being PC, and then you brand my example as "a shot" when I haven't said anything offensive. You are worse than PC, you are a hypocrite. And if said movie was made and produced, hate crime legislation would only come in handy AFTER the additional potential lynchings.

[elkangorito]

I wholeheartedly agree with JD.

And Kat, you say that the questioning of images etc is what changes things. I totally agree with you but in this case, nothing is being questioned!! What is happening is that a bunch of people, who have DECIDED to be offended, have ORDERED the banning of a film. Let me stress one word...DECIDED. Nobody held a gun to their head & ordered them to feel upset.

If these people are granted their wish, it will send the message to them that they are NOT responsible for their own feelings, when in fact, they are. It will endorse the fact that are powerless to change any outcome of their life. They will continue to believe that if the thoughts or actions of others change, their lives will be ok.

Kat, you also say that "free speech is a right and a responsibility". It is neither. Free speech is something that anyone can CHOOSE to do at any time. Ok, there might be repercussions of what 'free speech' has actually been said but nonetheless, it is an available CHOICE.

As for being responsible for the 'free speech' that someone has said, any individual that says or does anything is always ultimately responsible for their words or actions. Perhaps you mean 'caring' or 'diplomatic' or other such words that endorse irresponsibility & lying?

If anything good is going to come out of this situation, it can only happen if the crappy movie is aired. I think the movie would be a piece of garbage (as I've mentioned before) but banning it will do more harm than good.

Oh, BTW, are you a member of a 'hated' minority group? I am & as a result, I've learned to change. This has given me the power to totally control my life, which is something I thought I could not do when I was stuck in the world of 'caring' & 'payback'. I never rely on anything but me...& it's bloody great.

To me, more laws equal more problems. Do you believe that laws work? What have they accomplished apart from successfully removing any form of responsibility that people can have?

I'll put my faith in human nature any day as opposed to putting my faith in any 'law'.

Edited May 18, 2006 by elkangorito

[Sheryl]

None has ever said that this movie was impinging on anyone’s rights. If you look at what the Cambodian government has said, and talk to individual Cambodians about it, what they say is that the production of the movie shows a lack of respect and sensitivity by the Thais towards the Khmer which the Thais themselves would not tolerate if shown to them, and which the Thais do not show towards other nationalities. As I have repeatedly said, the issue is about the way the Cambodians perceive the Thais to view them and treat them, and I have to say from extensive first hand experience that they have a valid point. . They do get badly and unfairly treated, discriminated against (no matter how legal and legitimate their purpose in being in Thailand may be) and above all, looked down upon and treated rudely. The same happens to Cambodians in their own country when working for or with Thai employers/companies. Hence, there is a great deal of resentment and this film struck a raw nerve.

A better analogy for this film than the gay murder thing would be the same plot and theme set in Auschwitz or another concentration camp site, with the ghosts being victims of the holocaust. Such a film would certainly have drawn protests and offended people – but it is very unlikely that anyone in Thailand would make such a film because they would know how offensive it would be and would not want to offend westerners in that manner. The film company, at least, seemed not to feel any hesitation though about offending Cambodians, and the Cambodians feel that they are treated differently – as less than human – by the Thais compared to how the Thais deal with equivalent situations involving other national groups. (except of course for the Burmese, who have an equally valid and similar set of grievances).

Now, I have adopted Thailand as my home and like the country and its people. Not all Thai people look down on Cambodians, of course, and even for the (unfortunately, the majority) who do, a lot of it stems from sheer ignorance, and for the most part the Thais are unaware of how their conduct is received by the Cambodian When the anti-Thai riots broke out a few years ago in Phnom Penh, Thai businesses were burned to the ground not only by mobs but in many cases with the help of their own Cambodian employees, despite the fact that it meant the loss of a job – they were that angry. And the irony is, the companies in question had no idea their employees felt this way, let alone why. One of my most vivid memories of the aftermath of those riots is the sudden change in behavior of the Bangkok airways staff on the Bkk-PP flight. I actually heard attendants address a Cambodian passenger as “Sir” – an all time first, although at least half the passengers on that route are always Cambodian. Unfortunately, this change didn’t last and they are back to treating the Cambodian passengers as inferiors in various subtle ways, although I think more or less unconsciously.

I believe that Thai-Cambodian relations can improve, but it will require that the Thais begin to know a great deal more than they do about their neighbors’ culture, sensitivities, and perceptions. It is a bit difficult for a government to lodge a generic complaint about attitudes and ignorance – they need something concrete, if only as a focal point for a deeper message. The making of this film provided that, and the Cambodian response has once again served to remind both Thai authorities and the Thai public that the Cambodians are people with feelings and capable of taking offense. A reminder they needed.

That’s all that this is about – not the Khmer Rouge per se, certainly not censorship. Some of the posters seem unaware of the context and have responded to this as they would to protests against movies taking place in the West. This is not happening for the same reasons, and the context and underlying reasons and purpose of the protest are quite different.

[elkangorito]

None has ever said that this movie was impinging on anyone’s rights. If you look at what the Cambodian government has said, and talk to individual Cambodians about it, what they say is that the production of the movie shows a lack of respect and sensitivity by the Thais towards the Khmer which the Thais themselves would not tolerate if shown to them, and which the Thais do not show towards other nationalities. As I have repeatedly said, the issue is about the way the Cambodians perceive the Thais to view them and treat them, and I have to say from extensive first hand experience that they have a valid point. . They do get badly and unfairly treated, discriminated against (no matter how legal and legitimate their purpose in being in Thailand may be) and above all, looked down upon and treated rudely. The same happens to Cambodians in their own country when working for or with Thai employers/companies. Hence, there is a great deal of resentment and this film struck a raw nerve.

A better analogy for this film than the gay murder thing would be the same plot and theme set in Auschwitz or another concentration camp site, with the ghosts being victims of the holocaust. Such a film would certainly have drawn protests and offended people – but it is very unlikely that anyone in Thailand would make such a film because they would know how offensive it would be and would not want to offend westerners in that manner. The film company, at least, seemed not to feel any hesitation though about offending Cambodians, and the Cambodians feel that they are treated differently – as less than human – by the Thais compared to how the Thais deal with equivalent situations involving other national groups. (except of course for the Burmese, who have an equally valid and similar set of grievances).

Now, I have adopted Thailand as my home and like the country and its people. Not all Thai people look down on Cambodians, of course, and even for the (unfortunately, the majority) who do, a lot of it stems from sheer ignorance, and for the most part the Thais are unaware of how their conduct is received by the Cambodian When the anti-Thai riots broke out a few years ago in Phnom Penh, Thai businesses were burned to the ground not only by mobs but in many cases with the help of their own Cambodian employees, despite the fact that it meant the loss of a job – they were that angry. And the irony is, the companies in question had no idea their employees felt this way, let alone why. One of my most vivid memories of the aftermath of those riots is the sudden change in behavior of the Bangkok airways staff on the Bkk-PP flight. I actually heard attendants address a Cambodian passenger as “Sir” – an all time first, although at least half the passengers on that route are always Cambodian. Unfortunately, this change didn’t last and they are back to treating the Cambodian passengers as inferiors in various subtle ways, although I think more or less unconsciously.

I believe that Thai-Cambodian relations can improve, but it will require that the Thais begin to know a great deal more than they do about their neighbors’ culture, sensitivities, and perceptions. It is a bit difficult for a government to lodge a generic complaint about attitudes and ignorance – they need something concrete, if only as a focal point for a deeper message. The making of this film provided that, and the Cambodian response has once again served to remind both Thai authorities and the Thai public that the Cambodians are people with feelings and capable of taking offense. A reminder they needed.

That’s all that this is about – not the Khmer Rouge per se, certainly not censorship. Some of the posters seem unaware of the context and have responded to this as they would to protests against movies taking place in the West. This is not happening for the same reasons, and the context and underlying reasons and purpose of the protest are quite different.

You seem to connect two different issues together, as if they were the one issue.

What Cambodians did to Thai businesses is an ACTION, which was based on Cambodian feelings. Please don't forget that these 'Cambodian feelings' were a CHOICE...not an order. At the moment, FEELINGS are currently being used to ORDER the ban of a program (an ACTION). Who are responsible for these FEELINGS? Therefore, no ACTIONS have resulted because of the program. Unless you have a 'crystal ball', there is no way of determining any ACTION as a result of the airing of a program.

We are talking about a television program, albeit a very stupid television program. Nonetheless, the Cambodian people have a CHOICE upon how they react to this movie. If the program is banned, it will endorse the 'powerlessness' of the Cambodian people. They will continue to believe that if another changes because of how they FEEL, their life will be ok.

The best thing that anybody can do for the 'self offended Cambodians' is to help them to realise that respect will not be lost because of a program & that respect ultimately lives within their hearts...& not a program. These people will not be free until they can realise that their own freedom lies not in the past but in the future that they can construct. If all of us felt sorry for them & supported their 'self offense', they would have absolutely no hope of being truly free individuals. Forget about Thai reactions...this is NOT the Cambodian problem. On the other hand, it is Cambodian reactions to the program that ARE the problem. Ones reaction to anything is a CHOICE.

STICKS & STONES CAN BREAK YOUR BONES BUT NAMES CAN NEVER HURT YOU (unless you CHOOSE to be hurt). And who can be blamed if you CHOOSE to be hurt? Nobody!!!

So, do you still want to feel sorry for these people & help them to remain powerless by supporting their FEELINGS or do you support their claiming their own lives by learning that respect lives within their own hearts & it cannot be affected by what others think or do?

Edited May 18, 2006 by elkangorito

[jdinasia]

"I wouldn't be made ... because it wouldn't be marketable. No major theater chain/distributor would touch it ... BUT I'd be OK with the choice to make it ..."

It wouldn't be marketable or produced because it would cause a major uproar and lose money. Is it censorship, pc gone mad, or simply a more educated and conscientous society? I'm not forcing anyone to be PC - in fact that is a category that you stuck me in for your own convienence. According to your argument I am PC because I am advocating censorship of this movie, which I am not. Actually it might be made ... I retract that ... it just wouldn't get major distribution. You are PC so what!... you think that the movie in question shouldn't be made because it would offend some people in another country who have YET to clean their own house on the whole KR thing. Yes like I said before it's a tacky concept to me ... but you are right .. you CAN'T force other people to be PC.

However, I do not view a society where anything goes as particularly liberal or tolerant. I never asked for this movie to be censored, but I do think it should be loudly criticized for what it is, and I do not think the complaints of the Cambodian government are trivial. What society is it that anything goes? You say it shouldn't be censored but loudly criticised ... ok ... then you don't even have the convictions you so loudly put out there The complaints aren't trivial <of the Cambodian Gov't> They just are irrelevant there's a difference. The Cambodians SHOULD be upset by what happened ... but they should be WAY more upset with their own gov't than they are with the folks that produced the movie in question.

Secondly, how on earth is my example a "shot at gays"? <you picked the gay theme because I am right? hence "how would you feel if..."> You accuse me of being PC, and then you brand my example as "a shot" when I haven't said anything offensive.<To whom ... the people you decide to use as an example in your weak analogy?> You are worse than PC, you are a hypocrite. Hypocrite in what way? And if said movie was made and produced, hate crime legislation would only come in handy AFTER the additional potential lynchings. Nah ... the fact that the movie would NEVER get major screenings would create the buzz that would be useful for hate crimes legislation no need for lynchings!

I know you would LIKE to see your arguments as having some basis in logic .... but they aren't. They are a knee-jerk liberal reaction to a bad horror movie that uses something that happened over 20 years ago as a backdrop. Tacky movie ... fair for people to boycott it if they think it is tacky ... but hel_l all your screaming about it without even having the courage to say "Ban It" will just create more "buzz" for the movie and get more people to see it .... I am GUESSING <Note Guess> that you didn't scream about the Last Temptation of Christ ... or even The Passion of the Christ ... and that surely offended way more people ... but liberal PC folks don't scream about large groups being targetted by perhaps tacky <to them> movies .... just have to protect the little guy ...

Free speech is both a right and a responsibility. When it intrudes on the rights of others it is no longer a right. Blindly advocating it as if it is a god-given right to endager or devalue others is equivalent to thinking that the right to drive means mowing down others. There is a reason for driver's education, and the licensing of guns.

What Rights ...and belonging to whom are being intruded upon ?????? by a tacky movie about a fictional reality TV show being made in a place that LOOKS like Toul Sleng/S22?

Edited May 18, 2006 by jdinasia

[jdinasia]

quote sheryl

None has ever said that this movie was impinging on anyone’s rights.

see the quote above at the end ... Kat did say that .... just not whose rights or how.

Sheryl ...

and even for the (unfortunately, the majority)

You speak for the MAJORITY of Thais that look down on the Khmers? Why are they looked down upon by the "majority" of Thais?

Sheryl ...

That’s all that this is about – not the Khmer Rouge per se, certainly not censorship

I am sorry I THINK I understand what you mean but am not SURE ... "That" is lacking a refferent. But it IS about the KR ,,, and about censorship ... it is NOT about religion or much of anything else.

<<oh and you left Malaysians and ethnic Malays out of your persecuted list .... not to mention Sea Gypsies ... or the Hill tribes etc....>>

[britmaveric]

Anyone actually seen the film yet???

[Sheryl]

At the moment, FEELINGS are currently being used to ORDER the ban of a program (an ACTION).

As far as I know, the Cambodians have at no time asked much less "ordered" the Thai government to ban the program.

They have simply expressed their feelings. Which is not an inappropriate thing to do in the context of a relationship, be it between people or neighboring countries.

[Sheryl]

quote sheryl

and even for the (unfortunately, the majority)

You speak for the MAJORITY of Thais that look down on the Khmers? Why are they looked down upon by the "majority" of Thais?

I speak of my observations, over 25 years of living and working with Thais and Khmers and especially of working in contexts where the two groups came together, and in the context of escorting Cambodians on errands and trips in Thailand literally thousands of times (because I speak the language fluently, hence I go along for translation...to immigration, to sotres, to hospitals, etc etc) and even as a worker/translator in Thai mediattaion centers. Oh, and regularly commuting between the two countries, which affords a lot of observations of inetractions between TThai airline personnel and Khmers. And dealing with Thai-owned business in Cambodia including discussions with the Thai management about their personnel issues related to Cambodian staff. And having frank discussions with a large number of Thai friends and acquaintances about their views and feelings towards Cambodians, and with Cambodians about the Thais. Etc etc. I have not done a formal survey but I think my considerable exposure, involving literally thousands of incidents and individuals, gives me some basis for drawing an ompression. And yes, I am sorry to say, the majority do look down on the Cambodians. And it is very much resented. As to why they look down on them -- largely sheer ignorance and lack of exposure. Very few Thais have been to Cambodia and Thais in general know less about their immediate neighbors than they do about much more distant countries. This fact has been remarked upon publicly by a number of Thais, including Thai academics, some of whom have undertaken projects to try to correct this. Many Thais have been to the border market and assume that what they see there is Cambodia... ( imagining Poipet to represent Cambodia being sort of like assuming the whole of the US is like Brownsville Texas). In addition, things that both nationalities have been taight in school (history classes) have given them negative impressions of each other, also a problem that has been widely commented upon by Thai academics and social activitists. In fact a committee has been formed to try to come up with a single, objective version of some of the more inflammatory or controversial histroical events. These are good moves but iof course will take years to yield rersults.

Sheryl ...

That’s all that this is about – not the Khmer Rouge per se, certainly not censorship

I am sorry I THINK I understand what you mean but am not SURE ... "That" is lacking a refferent. But it IS about the KR ,,, and about censorship ... it is NOT about religion or much of anything else.

<<oh and you left Malaysians and ethnic Malays out of your persecuted list .... not to mention Sea Gypsies ... or the Hill tribes etc....>>

No, it is NOT about censorship for sure, and not primarily about the KR either. Not from the Cambodian point of view, that is, and I think not from the Thai point of view. It does seem that most foreigners view it as being about that, which is understandable if one does nto have the information on the context of the whole thing which I have tried (apparently with no success!) to provide.

Of course, religion has nothing remotely to do with it. And yes, there are ethnic minorities in Thailand that have similar issues (and no government to speak on their behalf). I would question the idea that the Malaysians do, however. Maybe you meant Thai Muslims?

[kat]

quote sheryl

None has ever said that this movie was impinging on anyone’s rights.

see the quote above at the end ... Kat did say that .... just not whose rights or how.

Sheryl ...

and even for the (unfortunately, the majority)

You speak for the MAJORITY of Thais that look down on the Khmers? Why are they looked down upon by the "majority" of Thais?

Italics Kat:

First of all, you quote me out of context and misrepresent my point (no big surprise there), and then you question whether or not mass or majority Thai culture looks down on Cambodians. How far back do we have to go with you, to the invention of the wheel?

There is no basis of honest, rational discussion with you because you simply erect straw men and light fires all over the place.

"I wouldn't be made ... because it wouldn't be marketable. No major theater chain/distributor would touch it ... BUT I'd be OK with the choice to make it ..."

Actually it might be made ... I retract that ... it just wouldn't get major distribution. You are PC so what!... you think that the movie in question shouldn't be made because it would offend some people in another country who have YET to clean their own house on the whole KR thing. Yes like I said before it's a tacky concept to me ... but you are right .. you CAN'T force other people to be PC.

What society is it that anything goes? You say it shouldn't be censored but loudly criticised ... ok ... then you don't even have the convictions you so loudly put out there "The complaints aren't trivial <of the Cambodian Gov't"> They just are irrelevant there's a difference. The Cambodians SHOULD be upset by what happened ... but they should be WAY more upset with their own gov't than they are with the folks that produced the movie in question.

"Secondly, how on earth is my example a "shot at gays"?" <you picked the gay theme because I am right? hence "how would you feel if..."> You accuse me of being PC, and then you brand my example as "a shot" when I haven't said anything offensive.<To whom ... the people you decide to use as an example in your weak analogy?> "You are worse than PC, you are a hypocrite." Hypocrite in what way? And if said movie was made and produced, hate crime legislation would only come in handy AFTER the additional potential lynchings. Nah ... the fact that the movie would NEVER get major screenings would create the buzz that would be useful for hate crimes legislation no need for lynchings!

I know you would LIKE to see your arguments as having some basis in logic .... but they aren't. They are a knee-jerk liberal reaction to a bad horror movie that uses something that happened over 20 years ago as a backdrop. Tacky movie ... fair for people to boycott it if they think it is tacky ... but hel_l all your screaming about it without even having the courage to say "Ban It" will just create more "buzz" for the movie and get more people to see it .... I am GUESSING <Note Guess> that you didn't scream about the Last Temptation of Christ ... or even The Passion of the Christ ... and that surely offended way more people ... but liberal PC folks don't scream about large groups being targetted by perhaps tacky <to them> movies .... just have to protect the little guy ...

Free speech is both a right and a responsibility. When it intrudes on the rights of others it is no longer a right. Blindly advocating it as if it is a god-given right to endager or devalue others is equivalent to thinking that the right to drive means mowing down others. There is a reason for driver's education, and the licensing of guns.

What Rights ...and belonging to whom are being intruded upon ?????? by a tacky movie about a fictional reality TV show being made in a place that LOOKS like Toul Sleng/S22?

I'm shaking my head in laughter here. You accuse me of being short on logic, but then you go and accuse me of arguments and political stances that I haven't even made here, simply so you can continute to pigeon-hole me for the crux of your - cough, cough - argument. You need to GUESS, and then you need to turn around and call me a coward because I do NOT advocate censorship, but protest. Fine work JD I guess that must mean you as well, since you want to pass hate crime legislation but are also against censorhsip, and trivalize protest.

I used two examples: the Holocaust and gay lynchings. Both hypothetical situations should rightly meet fierce protests and opposition, which I made clear. I used the gay example because it is relevant, and something that you would care personally about, such as the Cambodians feel personally about the KR. I find it more than ironic that you are going on about my so-called knee-jerk PCness, but then you try to accuse me of being offensive to gay people because I used an example of gay lynching as a bad social example on which to base a trivializing movie. In fact, it is the height of hypocrisy, because you then turn around and embody the worst example of knee-jerk PCness - to use identity politics against someone simply because you can, rather than on the intent and context of their statement. What a piece of work you are ... You are a hypocrite also because you are the first one to harass and belittle anyone on this forum who engages in a critical discussion about Thailand, but now you are going on about the "irrelevant" complaints of the Cambodian government. As a matter of fact, I view your entire posting history of snide, self-congratulatory, little pot shots as completely irrelevant and am tired of even acknowledging you.

edit: I'm italics

Edited May 18, 2006 by kat

[kat]

I wholeheartedly agree with JD.

And Kat, you say that the questioning of images etc is what changes things. I totally agree with you but in this case, nothing is being questioned!! What is happening is that a bunch of people, who have DECIDED to be offended, have ORDERED the banning of a film. Let me stress one word...DECIDED. Nobody held a gun to their head & ordered them to feel upset.

If these people are granted their wish, it will send the message to them that they are NOT responsible for their own feelings, when in fact, they are. It will endorse the fact that are powerless to change any outcome of their life. They will continue to believe that if the thoughts or actions of others change, their lives will be ok.

Kat, you also say that "free speech is a right and a responsibility". It is neither. Free speech is something that anyone can CHOOSE to do at any time. Ok, there might be repercussions of what 'free speech' has actually been said but nonetheless, it is an available CHOICE.

As for being responsible for the 'free speech' that someone has said, any individual that says or does anything is always ultimately responsible for their words or actions. Perhaps you mean 'caring' or 'diplomatic' or other such words that endorse irresponsibility & lying?

If anything good is going to come out of this situation, it can only happen if the crappy movie is aired. I think the movie would be a piece of garbage (as I've mentioned before) but banning it will do more harm than good.

Oh, BTW, are you a member of a 'hated' minority group? I am & as a result, I've learned to change. This has given me the power to totally control my life, which is something I thought I could not do when I was stuck in the world of 'caring' & 'payback'. I never rely on anything but me...& it's bloody great.

To me, more laws equal more problems. Do you believe that laws work? What have they accomplished apart from successfully removing any form of responsibility that people can have?

I'll put my faith in human nature any day as opposed to putting my faith in any 'law'.

Elkan, I hear what you are saying and I respect it. However, I think you are applying the lessons of personal therapy to those of social change. They are mirrored and connected to an extent, because people are part of society, but both people and society are linked and individuals can therefore never be totally independent of society and vice versa.

Therefore, no matter how much individual people change from the inside out, if society-at-large is still practicing forms of discrimination or genocide, that is intervening on individuals very right to exist. For example, no matter how much the ethnic tribe of Karens in Burma change from within, the Burmese army is still raiding their farms, raping women, burning children alive, and chasing them out of their ethnic homeland. Uhm, time for the Burmese to change as well, don't 'ya think?

And yes, I am part of a minority group. And please read what I said about free speech. How you CHOOSE to wield it evokes responsiblities, privileges, and rights, especially if you use it irresponsibly so as to endager others - as in a crowded theater - or if by using it you are executed or thrown in jail.

[jdinasia]

Geeze Kat ... you never answer anything directly ... you skip and jump all over.

Yu=ou don't answer ANY question I asked ... (unlike me ... I addressed every point of your posts.

Guess if you can't defend a p.o.v. ....

edited by sbk for derogatory content

[Sheryl]

Well, I suppose this is getting nasty enough to merit shutting down. Which will probably be no loss since there does not seem to have been much success at communication anyhow.

Elko -- I have not been combining 2 different things so much as you and I have been discussing entirely different things. I have been discussing the reasons and underlying context for the Cambodian' people and governments expression of protest (protest, not demand for censorship). You have been talking about the general issue of how individual people can or should deal with having things of value to them not respected by opthers. This are not the same dialogue which is probably why we have been unable to connect.

For the poster who asked what my reference to "that" was -- by that, I meant the Cambodian reaction, which is what I thought was the topic. Maybe I've been a bit slow in picking up on the fact that others had shifted to a different topic.

Re: "The Cambodians SHOULD be upset by what happened ... but they should be WAY more upset with their own gov't than they are with the folks that produced the movie in question."

what makes you think they aren't???

And have you understood anything at all of what I have said about why they are upset, i.e. that they are upset not about Thai actions vis-a-vis the KR genocide but Thai treatment of Cambodians overall??

Perhaps I have been inarticulate but I really can't see how I could say it any better.....

[jdinasia]

Sheryl ... then the Cambodians need to reference the real issue and not the movie .... (re: upset by treatment overall). The movie is just a tacky thing. However since the movie IS about (theorhetically since it is clealy modelled after) a place where some of the worst abuses of the KR happened ... until they clean up their history on that by having real trials ... then the pint on THIS thread is kinda moot

SBK ... don't remember what I wrote that you deleted so cannot comment ....

Kat ... you never did say whose rights and in what way they were being abused by this freedom of spech issue it's just a knee-jerk liberal PC reaction as far as I can see (to yes .... I say it yet again ... a tacky horror movie)

[Sheryl]

Sheryl ... then the Cambodians need to reference the real issue and not the movie .... (re: upset by treatment overall).

The Cambodians are southeast asians, and they were communicating with Thais, who are also southeast asians, and the subtext was perfectly clear to both parties.

Southeast asians do not communicate in a western way, especially among each other.

Specifically -- and if you have been any length of time in Thailand, surely you have noticed it by now -- they do not directly reference the real issue when upset over something.

Now, since this was a Cambodian - Thai issue, and the Thais have indicated they accept the validity of the Cambodian grievance and made an apology, and the Cambodians seem to be staisifed with that, at least for now, why on earth should outsiders object or keep obsessing over it? The matter is settled, let it lie. See the movie or don't as you see fit, it's available for view, uncensored. Nobody is picketing the theatres or asking you not to go. (Besides, 1-2 hours veiwing of a Thai ghost movie will be more than punishment enough....)

[jdinasia]

oh please ....

We have one saying the movie violates someone's rights ...

and another saying the stink isn't about the movie ...

55555

Edited May 20, 2006 by jdinasia

[elkangorito]

oh please ....

We have one saying the movie violates someone's rights ...

and another saying the stink isn't about the movie ...

55555

Yes. The 'goal posts' seem to be constantly moving.

[britmaveric]

Well I think until someone sees the movie - this is all moot and conjecture.

[gonzobrains]

This sounds to be very unsensitive. Imagine a European film based on a similar location to Auswitch!

how would they feel if Cambodians made a movie about the ghosts of the thai protest students who were slaughtered in the 70s?

[Scott]

An old thread. Is this movie still relevant and causing problems?

[gonzobrains]

Sheryl ... then the Cambodians need to reference the real issue and not the movie .... (re: upset by treatment overall).

The Cambodians are southeast asians, and they were communicating with Thais, who are also southeast asians, and the subtext was perfectly clear to both parties.

Southeast asians do not communicate in a western way, especially among each other.

Specifically -- and if you have been any length of time in Thailand, surely you have noticed it by now -- they do not directly reference the real issue when upset over something.

Now, since this was a Cambodian - Thai issue, and the Thais have indicated they accept the validity of the Cambodian grievance and made an apology, and the Cambodians seem to be staisifed with that, at least for now, why on earth should outsiders object or keep obsessing over it? The matter is settled, let it lie. See the movie or don't as you see fit, it's available for view, uncensored. Nobody is picketing the theatres or asking you not to go. (Besides, 1-2 hours veiwing of a Thai ghost movie will be more than punishment enough....)

well said.

hail to the overlords, for they have spoken.

[t.s]

Ancient post. deleted.

Edited April 27, 2009 by t.s

[sriracha john]

An old thread. Is this movie still relevant and causing problems?

No. superfluous bumping is the cause.... but that can cause problems... like...

Ancient post. deleted.

Sorry, that happens with superfluously bumped 3 year old threads.

[Sabum]

This sounds to be very unsensitive. Imagine a European film based on a similar location to Auswitch!

how would they feel if Cambodians made a movie about the ghosts of the thai protest students who were slaughtered in the 70s?

Sounds like a good idea, the more people that fully understand what happened in the 70's the better.

Now why the fluck did you resurect this 3 year old thread just to say that? Baka....