• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The "Horror Film Gene"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr_Baltar said:
Bear in mind that the fact also remains that we only ever hear of a tiny fraction of crimes of a violent nature. I don't remember hearing that Jack the Ripper, Pedro Alonso Lopez or Harold Shipman were particular fans of violent TV or movies. And, as I stated earlier, it's impossible to tell if the perpetrators' exposure and enjoyment are real but minimal, real but exaggerated by the media, or utterly fabricated. Besides, you seem to be presuming that the enjoyment leads to the murderous tendancies rather than vice versa.

Well, I'm not saying that violent entertainment is OK as long as it is not enjoyed, if that's what you mean. Although the existence of a "horror film gene" would explain why some people enjoy it more than others.

Historically, we do have the transcript of the trial of Gilles de Rais (1404-1440) - the original Blue Beard and friend of Joan of Arc - who stated at his trial for murder that he originally conceived the idea of torturing children to death from reading Suetonius' Life of the Caesars. And, of course, St. Augustine's Confessions in which he condemned not so much the circus games in themselves but the effect they had on his contemporaries. The Confessions, by the way, are at the root of what has been considered Christian morality for the past 1,600 years.

But this whole debate in modern times goes back to the publication of Dr. Wertham's infamous Seduction of the Innocent in the early fifties ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham ), a book every anti-censorhip advocate condemns sight unseen and very few of them have actually read. (It is currently out of print but available for free on the Internet.) Dr. Wertham wrote of a time when there were still "innocents" to seduce and his young delinquent patients confided in him the horrible thoughts that came to them after reading comic books that would be considered extremely tame by today's standards. What is most interesting about this book is almost all his predictions concerning what would happen to the media if some form of restraint was not applied have come true and have even gone beyond the good doctor's worst alarmist nightmares.

Just as St. Augustine and Fredric Wertham, I don't feel safe in a world where every one is authorized to indulge his every sick and violent fantasy with the blessing of the economic and commercial powers that be.
 
Timble2 said:
He likes country music - Johnny Cash was primarily a country musician - one of Johnny Cash's biggest hits was "Ring of Fire", this is obviously what caused Brendan Sokaluk to become an arsonist.... :roll:

It's worth mentioning that one of Johnny Cash's first ventures into "acting" was portraying a cold-blooded killer in the cheapo slasher Door-to-Door Maniac (Five Minutes to Live) (1961).
t45164xgonb.jpg


door_maniac.jpg
 
baracine said:
Well, I'm not saying that violent entertainment is OK as long as it is not enjoyed, if that's what you mean. Although the existence of a "horror film gene" would explain why some people enjoy it more than others.

No, that's not what I mean. However, I believe it was you that implied that violent enetertainment was ok if it was self-mocking. And I think we can discount the existence for a horror film gene. It's a lazy journalism answer to a complex question.

Historically, we do have the transcript of the trial of Gilles de Rais (1404-1440) - the original Blue Beard and friend of Joan of Arc - who stated at his trial for murder that he originally conceived the idea of torturing children to death from reading Suetonius' Life of the Caesars. And, of course, St. Augustine's Confessions in which he condemned not so much the circus games in themselves but the effect they had on his contemporaries. The Confessions, by the way, are at the root of what has been considered Christian morality for the past 1,600 years.

Are you seriously suggesting that de Rais was a normal human being who became a sadistic child-rapist and murderer because he read Suetonius?

But this whole debate in modern times goes back to the publication of Dr. Wertham's infamous Seduction of the Innocent in the early fifties ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham ), a book every anti-censorhip advocate condemns sight unseen and very few of them have actually read. (It is currently out of print but available for free on the Internet.) Dr. Wertham wrote of a time when there were still "innocents" to seduce and his young delinquent patients confided in him the horrible thoughts that came to them after reading comic books that would be considered extremely tame by today's standards. What is most interesting about this book is almost all his predictions concerning what would happen to the media if some form of restraint was not applied have come true and have even gone beyond the good doctor's worst alarmist nightmares.

From what I've read, Wertham's evidence was purely anecdotal. It's interesting, but it's hardly proof of anything.

Just as St. Augustine and Fredric Wertham, I don't feel safe in a world where every one is authorized to indulge his every sick and violent fantasy with the blessing of the economic and commercial powers that be.

Not many would feel safe in such a world. The dispute here would seem to be whether that is the world we actually inhabit, or is it more a product of your imagination.
 
Dr_Baltar said:
I think we can discount the existence for a horror film gene. It's a lazy journalism answer to a complex question.

With all due respect, I think the laziness resides in the opinion that just because this genetic research was reported with a cute title, (1) the research did not take place and (2) this "gene" doesn't exist.

Not many would feel safe in such a world. The dispute here would seem to be whether that is the world we actually inhabit, or is it more a product of your imagination.

Please leave my imagination out of it. My imagination has never been indentured to the horror industry.
 
baracine said:
...With all due respect, I think the laziness resides in the opinion that just because this genetic research was reported with a cute title, (1) the research did not take place and (2) this "gene" doesn't exist....

The original newspaper article is rubbish, research on genes and their effect on fear and anxiety response have been conducted, they don't by any stretch of the imagination support the idea of a "horror film gene".

Wertham's writings seem to be more an insight into his own psyche and obsessions, than into the effects of violence in comics.

Commentators of all ages seem to have a problem with whatever the popular entertainment of the era was, the puritan Robert Ascham complained of Malory's Morte d'Arthur "...the whole pleasure of of which booke standeth in two speciall poyntes, in open mane slaughter and bold bawdrye. In which booke those be counted the noblest knightes, that do kill most men without any quarrell, and commit foulest advoulteries by subject shifties,"

It appears that there've always been people upset by the dark knight
 
Timble2 said:
Wertham's writings seem to be more an insight into his own psyche and obsessions, than into the effects of violence in comics.

I still recommend that you read him before forming an opinion. The man was a sincere reformer who also battled against racial discrimination. See: http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/ar ... lund.shtml

Commentators of all ages seem to have a problem with whatever the popular entertainment of the era was, the puritan Robert Ascham complained of Malory's Morte d'Arthur "...the whole pleasure of of which booke standeth in two speciall poyntes, in open mane slaughter and bold bawdrye. In which booke those be counted the noblest knightes, that do kill most men without any quarrell, and commit foulest advoulteries by subject shifties,"

It appears that there've always been people upset by the dark knight

I have a brother who loves to contradict me on every subject and likes to say that one of my favourite novels, Lord of the Rings, which he only knows from the films, is the bloodiest spectacle he has ever seen. It's no use pointing out to him that in the whole novel there isn't a single instance of intra-species killing (except for the Orcs going bananas on each other and Sméagol killing his brother Déagol), he thinks he has won the argument.

And Robert Ascham had a point. French poet Chrétien de Troyes who got the whole Arthurian cycle rolling with his novels in the XIIth century was so ill at ease with depictions of adultery that he abandoned his own Lancelot half-way through. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chr%C3%A9tien_de_Troyes

(...)The last thousand lines of Lancelot were written by Godefroi de Leigni, apparently by arrangement with Chrétien. (...) In the case of Lancelot, no reason is given. This has not stopped speculation that Chrétien, medieval literature's greatest treater of matrimonial love, did not approve of Lancelot's adulterous subject.
 
Chretein didn't abandon it halfway through, only lines 6105-7119, and the afterword by Godefroi de Legni (7120-7134).

Why he stopped there is speculation, Yvain was written around the same time, perhaps he ran out of time, perhaps he wasn't too inspired with the project, if he didn't approve of it he certainely wrote a hell of a lot of it before deciding to stop.

At around 800 years remove, anything is guesswork that depends on the attitude of the commentator.

The other wiki on Lancelot says...
Others hold that he was uninterested by a subject thrust upon him by his patroness, preferring to spend more time on Yvain, the Knight of the Lion, a poem he wrote at the same time as Lancelot.

It is not certain whether Godefroi was following an outline left by Chrétien when he completed the poem, as most scholars have tended to believe, or if his section represented his own inspiration.

baracine said:
....
It's no use pointing out to him that in the whole novel there isn't a single instance of intra-species killing (except for the Orcs going bananas on each other and Sméagol killing his brother Déagol), he thinks he has won the argument...

At the battle of Pelennor Fields in LOTR, the Rohirrim, who are human fight the Haradrim (Southrons), humans who are allied with Sauron. So that's intra-species killing. And then the Easterlings with axes, who are human, weight in too, page 879 of my copy.
 
Timble2 said:
Chretein didn't abandon it halfway through, only lines 6105-7119, and the afterword by Godefroi de Legni (7120-7134).

Why he stopped there is speculation, Yvain was written around the same time, perhaps he ran out of time, perhaps he wasn't too inspired with the project, if he didn't approve of it he certainely wrote a hell of a lot of it before deciding to stop.

At around 800 years remove, anything is guesswork that depends on the attitude of the commentator.

You'd love my brother... The fact remains that Chrétien abandoned a story of adultery to concentrate on Yvain, which is all about marital love and fidelity.

At the battle of Pelennor Fields in LOTR, the Rohirrim, who are human fight the Haradrim (Southrons), humans who are allied with Sauron. So that's intra-species killing. And then the Easterlings with axes, who are human, weight in too, page 879 of my copy.

The author doesn't individualize any of the Haradrim or Easterling characters so as to attenuate this intra-species killing, which is rather inevitable in a time of war anyway. The films don't either. And my brother doesn't even know about their existence.
 
I don't want to butt in, but while we're on 'protofascists' may we point out that that (little know) fascist organization, the german nazi party, were notoriously keen on banning any manifestation of art or culture that they saw as 'morally degenerating'. They also weren't above using pseudoscience to back up their claims.
 
baracine said:
It's no use pointing out to him that in the whole novel there isn't a single instance of intra-species killing

Gandalf kills the Balrog. And I take it you're not a fan of The Silmarillion then?

Can I just ask, what is it that makes bloody violence acceptable when it's between different "species"?
 
Dr_Baltar said:
baracine said:
It's no use pointing out to him that in the whole novel there isn't a single instance of intra-species killing

Gandalf kills the Balrog. And I take it you're not a fan of The Silmarillion then?

Can I just ask, what is it that makes bloody violence acceptable when it's between different "species"?

Whereas it is debatable whether Gandalf and the Balrog are of the same essence (and I know you'll waste ink on that one), it seems rather evident that Tolkien knew he was writing for children and tended to minimize any instance of direct depiction of murder between his main characters, murder being defined as a man killing a man, a hobbit killing a hobbit and so on, the mayhem being confined to what the US film censors term "fantasy violence".

There is also the added nuance that due to the difference between the media and commercial imperatives, violence in the novels is not as graphic as what was depicted on film in the adaptation of those novels.

Should I assume your point is the same as my brother, i.e. that Lord of the Rings is the bloodiest demoralizing gorefest imaginable and that I am therefore an hypocrite? I've just been called a "Nazi" by H_James, so please feel free to indulge.

Put it on the pile alongside: "pompous arsehole", "snob", "Frenchman", "he's not even French, he's Canadian", etc.
 
Wouldn't something like a book depend heavily on the readers imagination?
 
baracine said:
...Whereas it is debatable whether Gandalf and the Balrog are of the same essence (and I know you'll waste ink on that one), it seems rather evident that Tolkien knew he was writing for children and tended to minimize any instance of direct depiction of murder between his main characters, murder being defined as a man killing a man, a hobbit killing a hobbit and so on, the mayhem being confined to what the US film censors term "fantasy violence".

There is also the added nuance that due to the difference between the media and commercial imperatives, violence in the novels is not as graphic as what was depicted on film in the adaptation of those novels.

Should I assume your point is the same as my brother, i.e. that Lord of the Rings is the bloodiest demoralizing gorefest imaginable and that I am therefore an hypocrite? I've just been called a "Nazi" by H_James, so please feel free to indulge.

Put it on the pile alongside: "pompous arsehole", "snob", "Frenchman", "he's not even French, he's Canadian", etc.

Lord of the Rings isn't primarily a book for children, if anything it's a book for JRR Tolkein, the hobby of an academic who was disappointed that there weren't more Anglo-Saxon epics, although The Hobbit was a children's book


And I think you'll find that it was you who brought up fascists in the first place....
 
Timble2 said:
And I think you'll find that it was you who brought up fascists in the first place....

Yes, but I didn't invent the link between violent cop shows - documentary or fictional - and protofascism. "Protofascist cop films" is already an established and recognized sub-genre of American cinema, as evidenced by this mini-review (culled at random):

Police Story - On the one hand, this Jackie Chan-directed action film is a prime example of the protofascist cop genre that was so popular in the 70s and 80s (Dirty Harry, The French Connection, Police Academy, etc) as Chan plays a cop who goes completely off the rails, kidnaps his superior officer at gunpoint, proceeds to capture the bad guys and then beat the hell out of them after they've surrendered. On the other hand, Jackie Chan is totally insane and this film has some of the most amazing stunt work in any film I've ever seen. He's got at least one great sequence of physical comedy to leaven his irritatingly constant camera mugging, and the film costars Maggie Cheung (very young but still awesome in the generic HK action girlfriend role) and Brigitte Lin. The #4 film of 1985.

From: http://theendofcinema.blogspot.com/2007 ... ition.html

It's just a question of properly naming things for what they are according to conventional wisdom and current trends.
 
baracine said:
Whereas it is debatable whether Gandalf and the Balrog are of the same essence (and I know you'll waste ink on that one),

Your condescending attitude notwithstanding, they were of the same species, like it or not. I'm not going to enter into a metaphysical debate about the "essence" of fictional characters.

it seems rather evident that Tolkien knew he was writing for children and tended to minimize any instance of direct depiction of murder between his main characters, murder being defined as a man killing a man, a hobbit killing a hobbit and so on, the mayhem being confined to what the US film censors term "fantasy violence".

That's what I was trying to ascertain; you find what you term "fantasy violence" acceptable.

There is also the added nuance that due to the difference between the media and commercial imperatives, violence in the novels is not as graphic as what was depicted on film in the adaptation of those novels.

Agreed, hence why the films have age-restricted certifications. However, that does not detract from the fact the book is full of violent imagery, both physical and psychological.

Should I assume your point is the same as my brother, i.e. that Lord of the Rings is the bloodiest gorefest imaginable and that I am therefore an hypocrite?

I didn't say that but I think it shows that, like everyone, you have a personal level of "acceptable" violence. You don't seem able to accept though that the overwhelming majority of people are not affected by what you seem to regard as corrupting.

I think most people contributing to this thread have read enough to make up their mind whether you're a hypocrite or not. My opinion is neither here nor there.
 
baracine said:
Yes, but I didn't invent the link between violent cop shows - documentary or fictional - and protofascism. "Protofascist cop films" is already an established and recognized sub-genre of American cinema, as evidenced by this mini-review (culled at random):

Police Story - On the one hand, this Jackie Chan-directed action film is a prime example of the protofascist cop genre that was so popular in the 70s and 80s (Dirty Harry, The French Connection, Police Academy, etc) as Chan plays a cop who goes completely off the rails, kidnaps his superior officer at gunpoint, proceeds to capture the bad guys and then beat the hell out of them after they've surrendered. On the other hand, Jackie Chan is totally insane and this film has some of the most amazing stunt work in any film I've ever seen. He's got at least one great sequence of physical comedy to leaven his irritatingly constant camera mugging, and the film costars Maggie Cheung (very young but still awesome in the generic HK action girlfriend role) and Brigitte Lin. The #4 film of 1985.

From: http://theendofcinema.blogspot.com/2007 ... ition.html

It's just a question of properly naming things for what they are according to conventional wisdom and current trends.

That doesn't even posit a link between violent cop shows and protofascism, let alone give any evidence for it. It merely states that there was a popular genre of film that depicted its anti-hero cop as protofascist in nature. And, to be honest, it's the first time I've heard that label. A quick Google only brings up that particular blog.
 
Dr_Baltar said:
baracine said:
Whereas it is debatable whether Gandalf and the Balrog are of the same essence (and I know you'll waste ink on that one),

Your condescending attitude notwithstanding, they were of the same species, like it or not. I'm not going to enter into a metaphysical debate about the "essence" of fictional characters.

I'll just remind you that there was a time when a Catholic affirming that St. Michael and Lucifer were of the same essence would have been ripe for excommunication.

it seems rather evident that Tolkien knew he was writing for children and tended to minimize any instance of direct depiction of murder between his main characters, murder being defined as a man killing a man, a hobbit killing a hobbit and so on, the mayhem being confined to what the US film censors term "fantasy violence".

That's what I was trying to ascertain; you find what you term "fantasy violence" acceptable. (...) However, that does not detract from the fact the book is full of violent imagery, both physical and psychological.

I think I'll go out on a limb on this one. I'll just venture that Lord of the Rings hasn't produced instances of mass Orc lynchings in England and that its effect on a whole generation has been rather beneficial. Whereas films like The Dark Knight (based on a comicbook and produced for immediate profit) strike me as a major tear in the fabric of the space-time continuum liable to incite quite a few people to violence and are almost invariably followed by debatably strange incidents like the Dendermonde Joker.

I think most people contributing to this thread have read enough to make up their mind whether you're a hypocrite or not. My opinion is neither here nor there.

Thank you for that. I can only hope I am perceived as an entertaining hypocrite.
 
Dr_Baltar said:
That doesn't even posit a link between violent cop shows and protofascism, let alone give any evidence for it. It merely states that there was a popular genre of film that depicted its anti-hero cop as protofascist in nature. And, to be honest, it's the first time I've heard that label. A quick Google only brings up that particular blog.

I won't be so condescending as to define "protofascism" for you. But just try googling: "Protofascist" + "Dirty Harry", or better still, "Protofascist" + "Death Wish".

A point has been made that protofascism was one of the dominant themes of American films during the Reagan era - on an equal footing with poor colour coordination and the women's fashions termed "corporate Godzilla" (padded shoulders and power hairdos). Some have even claimed the Bush family has modeled its imperial ambitions on The Godfather trilogy. I wouldn't be surprised...
 
In what sense are those films (i.e. Dirty Harry and the Godfather) proto-fascist? In both the protagonist is to some extent a vigilante who steps outside the established heirachy and laws to to achieve what they as an individual see as justice...not really fascism is it?

Protofacist is often used as a weasel word intended to cut off discussion, and is usually deployed to denigrate something you don't approve of.

Of the use of the word facism itself it has been said...

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
 
Timble2 said:
In what sense are those films (i.e. Dirty Harry and the Godfather) proto-fascist? In both the protagonist is to some extent a vigilante who steps outside the established heirachy and laws to to achieve what they as an individual see as justice...not really fascism is it?

Protofacist is often used as a weasel word intended to cut off discussion, and is usually deployed to denigrate something you don't approve of.

Of the use of the word facism itself it has been said...

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

You really need to go back to the definition of protofascism (not available online, I'm sorry), which is, paraphrasing, what you would find in any book: an individual taking the law into his own hands, while touting beliefs that, in an organized fashion, would lead to a fascist dictatorship. i.e. the strong overtaking the rights of the weak. The Fascist party in Italy started as the individual actions of Black Shirts who were breaking the law.
 
It's useless concept invented by people who use fascism as a synonym for authoritarianism, a strict moral code, bullying, or again just something they don't agree with.

Carried to their logical conclusion the attitudes of the protagonists in those films would be as likely to lead to anarchism as to authoritarianism.
 
Timble2 said:
...

Carried to their logical conclusion the attitudes of the protagonists in those films would be as likely to lead to anarchism as to authoritarianism.
Quite. Inspector Harry Callahan, as portrayed by Clint Eastwood, is really a good example of the US myth of the rugged individualist. Far-right wing, perhaps, but essentially a Libertarian, with a strict moral code, of his own devising. As shown in the second franchise movie, 'Magnum Force (1973)', Callahan really has no truck with 'protofascist' vigilante types and is as happy to eradicate that menace to society, as he is to eradicate any other, according to his own code of honour. That Callahan both wilfully disobeys authority and actively discourages partners, followers, or protégés.

That may only be my opinion and I'm happy to concede that others may have different views based on their own aesthetic criteria. However, that's a long way from comparing 'Dirty Harry', or 'Batman: The Dark Knight', with 'Man Bites Dog' and being able to sift the good from the bad, on apparently political grounds, or on the use of post-modernist irony, or even, of evidence for a genetic predisposition to violence.

--- --- --- --- ---

I'd just like to mention, re the Belgian, apparently wearing clown make-up, who killed those children and their teacher, that the circus is very popular in Belgium and that my partner has at least one niece who attended circus school in Brussels. If the presentations of the circus school and Flemish TV are anything to go by, acrobatic clowning, is extra popular and of a very high standard in Belgium. Whether the popularity of the circus, and its milieu in Belgium might have had more influence on the killer than the performance of Heath Ledger, in 'Batman: The Dark Knight', I can only suggest that it is at least a possibility, worthy of consideration.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I'd just like to mention, re the Belgian, apparently wearing clown make-up, who killed those children and their teacher, that the circus is very popular in Belgium and that my partner has at least one niece who attended circus school in Brussels. If the presentations of the circus school and Flemish TV are anything to go by, acrobatic clowning, is extra popular and of a very high standard in Belgium. Whether the popularity of the circus, and its milieu in Belgium might have had more influence on the killer than the performance of Heath Ledger, in 'Batman: The Dark Knight', I can only suggest that it is at least a possibility, worthy of consideration.

And I believe that the avowed perpetrator in this news story did not act out of respect for Muslim sharia or from rugged individualism but because he worked for the television industry and fell under its nefarious influence: :roll:

Muslim TV exec accused of beheading wife in NY
By CAROLYN THOMPSON – 12 hours ago

ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. (AP) — The crime drips with brutal irony: a woman decapitated, allegedly by her estranged husband, in the offices of the television network the couple founded with the hope of countering Muslim stereotypes.

ALeqM5iYzBh1w-YX5TDChtK6AyPNSYQBng


Muzzammil "Mo" Hassan is accused of beheading his wife last week, days after she filed for divorce. Authorities have not discussed the role religion or culture might have played, but the slaying gave rise to speculation that it was the sort of "honor killing" more common in countries half a world away, including the couple's native Pakistan.

Funeral services for Aasiya Hassan, 37, were Tuesday. Her 44-year-old husband is scheduled to appear for a felony hearing Wednesday.

The Hassans lived in Orchard Park — a well-off Buffalo suburb that hadn't seen a homicide since 1986 — and started Bridges TV there in 2004 with the message of developing understanding between North America and the Middle East and South Asia. The network, available across the U.S. and Canada, was believed to be the first English-language cable station aimed at the rapidly growing Muslim demographic.

Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said his officers had responded to domestic incidents involving the couple, most recently Feb. 6, the day Mo Hassan was served with the divorce papers and an order of protection.

"I've never heard him raise his voice," said Paul Moskal, who became friendly with the couple while he was chief counsel for the FBI in Buffalo. Moskal would answer questions in forums aired on Bridges TV that were intended to improve understanding between Muslim-Americans and law enforcement.

"His personal life kind of betrayed what he tried to portray publicly," Moskal said.

On Feb. 12, Hassan went to a police station and told officers his wife was dead at the TV studio.

"We found her laying in the hallway the offices were off of," Benz said. Aasiya Hassan's head was near her body.

"I don't know if (the method of death) does mean anything," said the chief, who would not discuss what weapon may have been used. "We certainly want to investigate anything that has any kind of merit. It's not a normal thing you would see."

Hassan was not represented by an attorney at an initial appearance on a charge of second-degree murder. Neither police nor the Erie County district attorney's office knew if he had hired a lawyer.

The New York president of the National Organization for Women, Marcia Pappas, condemned prosecutors for referring to the death as an apparent case of domestic violence.

"This was, apparently, a terroristic version of 'honor killing,'" a statement from NOW said.

Nadia Shahram, who teaches family law and Islam at the University at Buffalo Law School, explained honor killing as a practice still accepted among fanatical Muslim men who feel betrayed by their wives.

"If a woman breaks the law which the husband or father has placed for the wife or daughter, honor killing has been justified," said Shahram, who was a regular panelist on a law show produced by Bridges TV. "It happens all the time. It's been practiced in countries such as Pakistan and in India."

Acquaintances said Mo Hassan was not overtly religious — co-workers did not see him pray, for instance. But he seemed to adhere to many traditional practices.

Nancy Sanders, the television station's news director for 2 1/2 years, remembers him asking her to move her feet during her job interview so he would not see her legs. She was wearing a skirt and stockings.

He also would not let women enter his office unless his wife was there, and he blocked the station from airing a story about the first Muslim woman to win the title of Miss England in 2005, Sanders said.

Acquaintances said Aasiya Hassan was trained as an architect. Sanders described her as obedient to her husband, and that she wore a traditional hijab for a time but later stopped without explanation.

"She was beautiful, small, delicately built," she said, "while Mo would fill up a door frame. I always thought of him as a gentle giant."

Sanders, who left Bridges TV a year ago, said co-workers traded stories about Hassan's apparent violent streak, including one which had him running his wife's car off the road while the couple's two young children were inside. Aasiya herself never spoke of it, she said.

"I just do not feel it was an honor killing," Sanders added. "I think it was domestic abuse that got out of control."

Erie County District Attorney Frank Sedita did not immediately respond to The Associated Press' request for a copy of the order of protection issued against Mo Hassan. Divorce records are sealed in New York state. Aasiya Hassan's lawyer would not reveal the reasons for the divorce filing.

Hassan graduated with an MBA from the Simon School of Business at the University of Rochester in 1996, according to the TV station's Web site. Bridges broadcasts all over the United States and in Canada on various cable providers and Verizon FiOS. As of 6 p.m. Tuesday, the network was not broadcasting in the Buffalo area.

There was no answer at the network on Tuesday and it's Web site has a message saying Bridges is shocked and saddened and requests privacy.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD96DN1L01
 
baracine said:
...

And I believe that the avowed perpetrator in this news story did not act out of respect for Muslim sharia or from rugged individualism but because he worked for the television industry and fell under its nefarious influence:

Muslim TV exec accused of beheading wife in NY
By CAROLYN THOMPSON – 12 hours ago

...

ALeqM5iYzBh1w-YX5TDChtK6AyPNSYQBng


...
You are, of course most welcome to give forth of your own opinion. Others will no doubt judge what weight to give it, based on their own criterion. :)

I Posted that story, myself, over on the 'Islam in the 21st Century Thread', because Hassan had such obvious connections to Islam and culture, but beyond admitting to being boggled, by the story, I refrained from giving any opinion on what might have caused such an act, or what, if anything, might have been going through the perpetrator's head.

:confused:

Best to wait for the court case, on that one, I feel.
 
Timble2 said:
It's [a] useless concept invented by people who use fascism as a synonym for authoritarianism, a strict moral code, bullying, or again just something they don't agree with.

Those people happen to write dictionaries...

Canadian Oxford Dictionary:

Fascism 2b derogatory any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views.

Proto- 1 first in time, earliest, original; at an early or preceding stage of development.

It is beyond my ambition to explain to you what the words "democracy", "human rights" and "rule of law" mean.
 
baracine said:
And I believe that the avowed perpetrator in this news story did not act out of respect for Muslim sharia or from rugged individualism but because he worked for the television industry and fell under its nefarious influence: :roll:

Muslim TV exec accused of beheading wife in NY
By CAROLYN THOMPSON – 12 hours ago

ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. (AP) — The crime drips with brutal irony: a woman decapitated, allegedly by her estranged husband, in the offices of the television network the couple founded with the hope of countering Muslim stereotypes....

Jealously, a short temper and a narrow mind...never a good combination irrespective of creed, or career. It's a very old, sad, story.
 
baracine said:
And I believe that the avowed perpetrator in this news story did not act out of respect for Muslim sharia or from rugged individualism but because he worked for the television industry and fell under its nefarious influence: :roll:

The television industry convinces their executives to kill people?

Or do you mean that it's an industry strongly associated with narcotics consumption and the excesses of modern living?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
I'd just like to mention, re the Belgian, apparently wearing clown make-up, who killed those children and their teacher, that the circus is very popular in Belgium and that my partner has at least one niece who attended circus school in Brussels. If the presentations of the circus school and Flemish TV are anything to go by, acrobatic clowning, is extra popular and of a very high standard in Belgium. Whether the popularity of the circus, and its milieu in Belgium might have had more influence on the killer than the performance of Heath Ledger, in 'Batman: The Dark Knight', I can only suggest that it is at least a possibility, worthy of consideration.

I have heard tell that the latest news from Belgium is that all he wore was eyeliner. Time to ban Green Day?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top