Let's Talk About Tarantino's Bad 'Channel 4' Interview...

Really puzzled by this. Tarantino all of a sudden gets squeamish about talking about violence and movies. He point blank refuses to answer a question about why he thinks that real life violence and enjoyment of violence in movies are not connected saying "I'm shutting your butt down". It strikes me as bizarre since (i) I'd have though Tarantino had a lot to say on the subject and (ii) the interviewer didn't seem to me to be at all opinionated or unfair in his posing of the issue.

(video link)

So why is Tarantino acting like this?

- Is he less sure of his position on whether violence can be caused by films and feel less able to speak confidently on the issue?
- Is he in a defensive mood, possibly even from an earlier interview? Perhaps the hypothetical idea posed that this latest movie might be "trashed by more people" than previous movies rubbed him the wrong way?
- Is it because he thinks he has a good chance at the Oscars this time around and he's worried about controversy for that reason?

Personally I feel the idea that people are going to talk about slavery in an important way as a result of "Django Unchained" is rather hard to swallow. I also found it rather worrying to watch a rich white director say to a black interviewer "I'm not your slave. I'm not your monkey," in order to explain why he is refusing to answer a reasonable and respectfully delivered question.

I like Tarantino most of the time and I'm still planning to see "Django Unchained" fairly soon when it is finally released in the UK. However, he gave a pretty appalling interview here and I'm not sure what he thought he was playing at.

(Cross-posted to moviebuffs)

Woman Wins Right She Already Possessed - Declared "Landmark" Case Against "Christian Persecution"...

Some "big news" recently that the woman who worked for British Airways who had already won a ruling to allow her to wear a cross in the workplace, has now taken that same case to the European Court of Human Rights and proven that she has the same right there too.

Cue ridiculously misleading headlines:
The Independent: "Christian woman wins landmark discrimination case."
("Landmark"? Seriously?)

The FT: "BA employee wins right to wear cross."
(She already HAD that right. FFS!)

And of course, the Daily Fail: "'Thank You Jesus' Christian British Airways employee tell of joy as after European court finds she DID face discrimination over silver cross."
(Thanks Jesus! You've allowed a court to re-state the obvious! Well done!)

What most of the coverage is failing to make clear is that there were in fact FOUR court cases being brought before the ECHR and the other three ALL LOST their court cases.



One of those who lost their court case was Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor who refused to counsel gay couples because of his religious views. I previously posted an interview with him here (shocked at the lack of opposing voices provided in the interview, but fairly pleased with the amount of pressure placed by the interviewer himself).

The other two were:
- Lillian Ladele, a chaplain who refused to perform civil partnerships. It has now been decided that her wish to discriminate on religious grounds does not trump gay rights or the requirements of her employers.

- Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who had refused to accept the option of wearing a cross a different way in her workplace, such as in the form of a lapel pin. She lost the case that wearing the cross on a chain, which is against the uniform rules for nurses in UK hospitals, was a necessary part of her freedom of religious expression in the workplace.


Andrew Copson, as always, delivers some proper common sense below:

(video link)


Side-Note
Interestingly, a google image search for "ECHR religion rulings" mostly comes up with images related to a case from 2010 where a woman was unable to get her abortion within Ireland in spite of a risk to her life. There were a lot of protests against the ruling by anti-choicers, but perhaps if Ireland had taken that case a little more seriously (since unlike the above, it actually contradicted their own rulings) Savita might still be alive.



(cross-posted to atheism)