What to post publicly about the war

[DeepO]

On its initial UK release the film was banned by some town councils (several even took great pleasure in banning it, even though they had no cinemas within their boundaries)

Now, why does this strike me as a very good characterisation of the British?

DeepO

[Cort Haus]

Zargon has given the OK to the screenshots.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DeepO

On its initial UK release the film was banned by some town councils (several even took great pleasure in banning it, even though they had no cinemas within their boundaries)

Now, why does this strike me as a very good characterisation of the British?

DeepO

Even though the British state has transformed itself from the traditional 'Christian-Conservative' outlook of the past, the current 'Liberal-Humanitarian' atmosphere ends up just as authoritarian as in the old days of the Python bans.

A controversial play in Birmingham has recently had to close after violent attacks on the theatre by a religious group who claimed to be offended. The attitude from the state is not one of resolve to protect democracy from violence, but to support the withdrawal of the play on the grounds of 'best not upset anyone'. This sends a message to other censorious and autocratic elements that violence is the best way to shut people up who you disagree with.

Rest assured though, DeepO, there are many British people, in the spirit of the Pythons themselves, who would not wish themselves to be characterised as a nation of knee-jerk gaggers and censors.

[DeepO]

I just noticed... I'm off to edit the post. I'll check one final time whether there is nothing on those screenies that could harm us, Lego knowing we have a chain is no longer important, as they have no land units on Legoland anymore.

DeepO

[DeepO]

CH, that was not exactly what I meant with the quote. I have seen a documentary a while ago on some board (forgot the name), which was responsible for censoring movies in the 50s and 60s in the UK. It was interesting for sure. Belgians are a bit more open it seems to me, but we had our things as well.

What I did find very English was that even in the case of a censoring town council, they do manage to make the ban pythonesque by banning a movie in a city, where the movie can't be played anyway. It's the absurdity I enjoyed, even in such sad rulings.

DeepO

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DeepO
What I did find very English was that even in the case of a censoring town council, they do manage to make the ban pythonesque by banning a movie in a city, where the movie can't be played anyway. It's the absurdity I enjoyed, even in such sad rulings.

DeepO

Yeah, the irony is pythonesque, and that was your point! I got a bit Off Topic rambling about the historical development of British Censorious attitudes.

Speaking of bans, what about the banning of the F1 Grand Prix at Spa? Was it really about tobacco advertising as the Belgian authorities claimed, or was it a Flemish-Walloon spat as a Franco-Belgian friend of mine suggested?

[DeepO]

Walloons tend to see a lot of things in a communal setting... in this case they have no point to make, though. And there is a major difference: tobacco advertising has been banned in Belgium for several years, and specifically for the F1, an exemption was made. This was coded in a federal law no less, and even previously ammended to extend by 2 years.

But in the end, this compromise had to end, and the ban had to become for the whole of Belgium, including Spa. It was very political at the time, though, you've got to remember that our federal government was a coalition of 6 parties at that moment (3 on for each language, the liberals, socialists, and greens (smallest)) (well, even more actually, but some of the smaller ones were absorbed into those 6). On Flemish side, it was written in the governing agreement that the ban had to become general. For changing a federal law, you need majorities for Belgian as a whole, and for both of the languages.

Now, the law was already in effect, and in order to change it, all 6 parties had to comply. The 4 parties in opposition would not help the government, even if in principle the Catholic Flemish party was for changing the law (they did so a couple of years ago, when they were in government). On Flemish side, there was no majority to change the law, as both the green and the socialists didn't want it, and the catholics weren't going to help the liberals. And, in order to keep the coalition (a liberal-socialist-green coalition is very fragile), the liberals voted against as well.

So, no ammendment. I think it didn't even came to a vote, as this discussion was all done outside of the senate and house of commons.

Belgian politics is complicated... very complicated. And in many cases the Flemish and Walloons interpret certain events very different. In reality, the loss of the F1 in Spa cost Flanders more in revenue than it did for our compadres (which was why the liberals were for changing the law in the first place), but somewhere it got mangled into an argument on Walloon employment rates on their side.

And still, I prefer our system over any 2-parties system as is present in both the UK and US. That oversimplifies the views of people, life is complicated, so why can't politics be.

Hum. To stear this post a bit more on topic, the screenshots have been added to the public thread

DeepO

[DeepO]

BTW, I lived for over 20 years less than 200m away from that other Belgian circuit, which previously held F1 races: Terlaemen. It was a communal decision that moved the F1 to Spa (which is only a few kilometers from the language barrier), even if all riders and Eckelstone (sp?) prefer Terlaemen.

We didn't mind. F1 brings a lot of noise, in a rural area

DeepO

[alva]

Belgian politics is complicated... very complicated.

Bwahh, only a little bit.

And still, I prefer our system over any 2-parties system as is present in both the UK and US.

Yup, though I wouldn't mind separating the two. I know less of Southern politics than I know of English or American.