Bahamas ban BBM?

[Lynne]

This article and others reports that the Bahamas have banned Brokeback Mountain.

"Theaters in Nassau, the capital, had already begun to advertise the movie when the board announced its ban at the request of the Bahamas Christian Council...The board chose to ban it because it shows extreme homosexuality, nudity and profanity, and we feel that it has no value for the Bahamian public," Chavasse Turnquest-Liriano, liaison officer for the control board, said.  The Rainbow Alliance, a gay rights group, called the ban a "farce," and said most Bahamians reject the idea that a "small group of appointed individuals … can provide the moral compass for the entire count

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/bahamas-brokeback-mountain-ban-draws-ire/2006/03/31/1143441313633.html

This just leaves me at a loss...I thought the Bahamas was a reasonably free society.  The 'extreme homosexuality, nudity, and profanity' quote is priceless.  I can name 20+ movies off the top of my head with more offensive nudity and profanity by anyone's standards.  And I can only suppose that 'extreme homosexuality' = 'any homosexuality' because anyone at all attuned to what is going on in the movie can viscerally feel the restraint.

Just my 2 cents...what do you guys think?  I think I'll find a different locale for my next scuba diving trip.

Lynne

...and an interesting follow up...
http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/brokeback-mountain/gay-cowboy-cruise-lines-to-skip-bahamas-this-year-164197.php

[Aussie Chris]

No value for the Bahamian public?  But what about the Bohemian public? 

A part of me wants to say that's their problem, I'm here and they're there, but Lynne, having watched BBM (your tag line) won't let me do that any more.

Once again, a bunch of Christian Zealots feel that they have a right to dictate what everyone else gets to do.  I was thinking about this earlier today: what is it exactly that gives them this "right"?  Actually, the better question is why do people listen to them?  I've always found discrimination of any form totally illogical.  They're really just a grown up version of a school-yard bully, but they use words along the lines that it's for our own good.  Our Prime Minister was saying on the news just today (paraphrased) that Australians believe that marriage is the perogative of men and women.  I thought: Oh really? Says who? And who says that you're allowed to discriminate like this, just because you're in the majority?

Ok I'm rambling a bit, but the point is, how can you complete with this kind of lunacy, and how can we stop people from listening to it?

[Lynne]

No value for the Bahamian public?  But what about the Bohemian public? 

A part of me wants to say that's their problem, I'm here and they're there, but Lynne, having watched BBM (your tag line) won't let me do that any more.

Once again, a bunch of Christian Zealots feel that they have a right to dictate what everyone else gets to do.  I was thinking about this earlier today: what is it exactly that gives them this "right"?  Actually, the better question is why do people listen to them?  I've always found discrimination of any form totally illogical.  They're really just a grown up version of a school-yard bully, but they use words along the lines that it's for our own good.  Our Prime Minister was saying on the news just today (paraphrased) that Australians believe that marriage is the perogative of men and women.  I thought: Oh really? Says who? And who says that you're allowed to discriminate like this, just because you're in the majority?

Ok I'm rambling a bit, but the point is, how can you complete with this kind of lunacy, and how can we stop people from listening to it?

Chris - thank you for your reply.  BTW, if I'm not replying in a timely fashion, it's just because I'm mulling things over.  I can completely sympathize with the 'they're over there' attitude, but I completely agree that since BBM, it's not a sufficient response for me either.  I think I disagree with the 'majority' nomenclature...here, at least, things tend to be polarized with the zealots on each side and a large number of apathetic folks in the middle.  It's those apathetic folks who seem easily led in polls or whatever to say whatever is popular.

But the better question, and the question I think many of us are here to answer, is what can we do as individuals, or in or community, or wherever makes sense, to make a difference?  It's not a question that can be easily answered and I think the answers will vary for all of us.

In my own life, I vote, I donate $ to the 'right' places, yada yada.  But personally it is harder.  I think I've made friends both gay and straight and undecided and for most of my life, at least, I have tried to take a stand when circumstatances dictated it.  Here is a small example.  I was on vacation with some acquaintances (Christian) several years ago and the subject of my volunteer job arose.  (I was working for a suicide prevention hotline in the Boston area for several years by that time.)  They wanted details of my work (because it sounded like a fine Christian endeavour), so I proceeded to give them some general demographics...in a shift I might take so many calls, so many adults, so many teens and their concerns tended to be whatever.  Well....when I mentioned the teenagers calling, feeling conflicted about sexual identity issues ( say half the teen calls and as much as 30% of those suicidal), I might as well dropped an elephant at the table.  These fine Christians didn't want to hear any of the sort because the Bible doesn't support it.  The worst part is that there were two teenagers 16-17 were in the group and HEARD this rejection coming from their parents/stepparents.  I took them aside for private conversations during the course of the week, but geez...the point I was making is that teenagers are frequently suicidal at the idea of 'coming out' to their family (Boston is a major Catholic stronghold) and it's no wonder if they're getting these negative messages pretty much from day 1.  Yet this 'very nice' family could see in no way how it might apply to them.  The epitome of obtuseness!

OK that's enough rambling...I think my point is that it's only in very small ways as individuals you can make a difference.  I made no dent in those parents whatsoever, but i hope I diffused any trepidations the teens had at the time to make it easier if they ever do have a decsion to make wrt their sexuality.

We need a post for activist ideas somewhere, I think.
-Lynne

[Aussie Chris]

We need a post for activist ideas somewhere, I think.

Thanks Lynne for sharing this story, I'd love to hear more about your life because you inspire me, and clearly you are an amazing and compassionate soul.  And I'd be interested in discussing some activist ideas too, although I feel a little out of my depth with it though because I've never really paid much attention to such things (pre-Brokeback of course).  I worry about the effectiveness of campaigning and lobbying because to me they have their roots in the concepts of fear and greed - the church is adept at combining these qualities nicely.  The BB-tribute advertisement was an excellent example of not tearing down the opposing side, but simply saying thank you for the joy that BBM has brought us.  This is how I like to see the world, instead of being in opposition to those that would tear us down, call us names, and basically make us feel ashamed and repressed; I wonder what the world would be like if everyone was accepting and not just tolerant (or intolerant).  I agree that there are two very vocal minorities that are driving these issues, and I have little interest in either of them if they use the same tactics of fear and hate to get their message across.

When I mentioned that the Prime Minister was acting in the "majority", I was referring to heterosexuals.  I think about it a lot actually: how do we get the issue of equality into a political forum where politicians by definition only do what the majority wants them to do, otherwise they lose the next election.  Over here politicians can stay in power indefinitely - our PM (John Howard) has had the top job for more than 10 years.  But his stance on issues like gay marriage are based on the fact that he isn't gay, and neither is the majority of the population, so he sees no need to allow the law to be proposed let alone get passed.  In my humble opinion, this is illogical because it means that gays can't marry unless it's a heterosexual marriage, and so he is effectively saying that it's not ok to be gay.  Ergo, he believes it's ok to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  But I'm just being logical on what is an illogical point of view, and what seems like common sense to me does not seem to translate beyond an opinion, at least in most heterosexual's minds.

Oh divine inspiration (and fellow Brokaholics), please lead me on a path where I can make a real difference.

[Shuggy]

Here in New Zealand we have censorship, but the standard is "injurious to the public good" and I can't remember the last time a real film was banned outright*. The Chief Censor is openly gay (to the rage of the fundies). The worst that usually happens is that a film is restricted to film festivals only.  So the fundies sometimes make frivolous complaints with a view to delaying a film until a festival is over.

BBM is rated M, suitable for mature audiences 16 years and over [but not restricted] with a note "Contains violence, offensive language & sex scenes".

I think the advent of DVD means theatre censorship is going to be pretty much a dead letter.

*Later: now I remember, in the 1980s, I (as a member of a men's group) was called in to join a focus group to judge a heterosexual bondage film. We agreed it should be banned, not because it demeaned women (though it did) but because some of the acts (such as leaving a woman in bondage overnight and going to sleep) were unsafe.

[Lynne]

Here is some more news coverage from the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/tv/1401AP_Bahamas_Brokeback_Banned.html

Shuggy and Chris - thanks for telling us how things work in N.Z. & Australia.  As usual, we Americans (me) have only a vague notion of the way the rest of the world works in practice.

It's my impression than 'censorship' per se doesn't work here in the U.S...the ACLU tends to act quickly for blatant acts of censorship at least of popular books and movies...what textbooks are chosen in schools, etc. is an entirely different debate.  I think censorship here tends to be more economically oriented.  The example I can think of, off the top of my head, is that of the Dixie Chicks.  Have you heard of them?  Country music female artists who I think are very good.  But they made the cardinal mistake of disagreeing vocally with Bush's Iraq policies while on tour in another country (France, probably).  The result has been no popular support of their music - DJ's not playing their songs, allegedly because the call-in listener polls are opposed, etc...it's a huge farce.  I don't know all the economics behind it, but I know they still do good work yet  their popular support has gone to hell in a bucket because of the 'public outcry'.  Any 'outcry' had to be the result of a great deal of political orchestrating.  [I think I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist!!]

-Lynne

[Aussie Chris]

The example I can think of, off the top of my head, is that of the Dixie Chicks.  Have you heard of them?  Country music female artists who I think are very good.  But they made the cardinal mistake of disagreeing vocally with Bush's Iraq policies while on tour in another country (France, probably).  The result has been no popular support of their music - DJ's not playing their songs, allegedly because the call-in listener polls are opposed, etc...it's a huge farce.  I don't know all the economics behind it, but I know they still do good work, but their popular support has gone to hell in a bucket because of the 'public outcry' which I think had to be the result of a agreat deal of political orchestrating.  [I think I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist!!]

Sure thing Lynne, we know the Dixie Chicks very well over here.  They tend to get most of their airtime on the (government owned) alternative radio station Triple-J.  I like them very much as well.  We also heard about their comments about the Bush administration, and in my mind that instantly made them 1000% more likeable and worth listening to.  Around the same time there was also a very amusing picture of female-homosexuals holding a sign saying "Lesbians against Bush", which had me chuckling for days.

As far as Americans having only a vague notion of how the rest of the world works, well, there's no real surprise there now.  In fact, American Parochialism is internationally recognised as a defining quality, like having a world series baseball tornament with yourself - although you do have Canada in there now, yes?  I wonder how many countries need to be involved before "world" is a reasonable adjective?

[Lynne]

Around the same time there was also a very amusing picture of female-homosexuals holding a sign saying "Lesbians against Bush", which had me chuckling for days.

OK...I have to be the biggest dunderhead on the planet...I just now get the joke 

...like having a world series baseball tornament with yourself...

Now that's blasphemy, Chris!!  You do know that President Bush threw out the first pitch today?!? 

[Aussie Chris]

OK...I have to be the biggest dunderhead on the planet...I just now get the joke 

Yes, they're very clever and witty those dykes, bless 'em.

Now that's blasphemy, Chris!!  You do know that President Bush threw out the first pitch today?!? 

Oooh, a presidential pitch?  That must be to make it all official then?