India : Muslim family forced to leave theatre for not standing during national anthem

[Nilgiri]

That said, where is the mob violence? It sounds a lot like the NBA went through with its internal processes of communicating and discussing the issue with him.

"Communicating" and "discussing". Well this mob in the theatre did pretty much the same thing then. At no point did they lay a hand on this family.....and the family members careers were not spoiled because of it unlike what the NBA did.

Though they would have faced a really bad day indeed if the mob called in the police and went by the book. So you can thank the mob that they did not act like the NBA and actually physically ruin a persons life because of his personal disrespectful attitude.

They are very reasonable assumptions, but my argument stands even without them. The information provided related to this incident suggests that the family acted passivel and certainly without any indication that they would cause tangible harm to anyone.

'Hurt sentiments' is a frivolous and utterly ridiculous yardstick to justify mob action.

You see you are again going on by what you heard or your personal interpretation and assumption. The family definitely did not act passively. A passive act would be not to attend the cinema in the first place if they knew staying seated was a contravention of the law of the land. Or they could go to another state where it isnt the law of the land or cinemas dont play the anthem at the beginning.

When you are living somewhere, you follow the rules of the land there.....quite simple.

Now I don't agree with what the mob did, they should have got the cinema managers to evict these people. But they probably had a better understanding of the real-politik at play here and decided chasing these people off was the better decision for everyone involved (when considering Indian police like others have talked about here already). Again that was their decision but it was just a reaction to the instigators staying seated and being disrespectful.

There are tons of cases where disrespect in a public setting attracts immediate wrath and mob justice, in the developed more "civilised" world. I have seen it in Canada, I've seen it in the US...and it is done whichever race, colour, creed the perpetrator is from. It is a worldwide phenomenon and while we may not like mob vigilantism, it is part of the real world....and no country is better than another in this regard. No one has the higher moral ground here, there are boiler divisive thresholds in every country that get people to react firmly to someone being disrespectful to their culture, country, customs you name it. I can list for you what I have seen just here in Canada, and it will make this mob crowd look quite tame in comparison.

So you can be critical of it all you want. Just don't put any other country on some higher moral level. Its a fact of the world. You piss on the people around you someway....they will get right back up and tell you how they feel about it and why you shouldn't...and you better be gone from the immediate area. Its human nature.

 

[Sky lord]

What court established that allegation against the family?

Seriously ? You need a court to establish that these people did not stand up?

No, the moral of the story is that government and various public establishments need to ensure they maintain public order and prevent harassment and violence/threats of violence by mobs, and allow the legal system to function when claims of 'law breaking' are made.

A bald headed, pot bellied middle aged man yelling does NOT constitute a mob! If it does then my dad subjects me to mob violence every couple months. I need to contact the government,

have no interest or information on why some community in India does or does not do XYZ - I'm making a general point about condemning mob behavior and, in this instance, specifically condemning the behavior of the patrons confronting the family and the theater management in not kicking out the patrons confronting the family for disturbing public order and harassment.

But this is the crux of the matter! And it seems to be non- debatable.

 

[Nilgiri]

I was wondering, before the national anthem is actually played in such a movie theatre...is there a statement like "Please rise for the national anthem" etc...or does the anthem just start out of nowhere?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"Communicating" and "discussing". Well this mob in the theatre did pretty much the same thing then. At no point did they lay a hand on this family.....and the family members careers were not spoiled because of it unlike what the NBA did.

The mob in the theater did nothing of the sort that the NBA did - the NBA did not surround the man and his family at a game with a mob and demand he do XYZ. The discussions with the player (whatever they were) occurred in private and under whatever rules and mechanisms the NBA has established. The mob, by it's nature, is a physically threatening entity. A mob is by its nature operating under a lack of rules and controls, and doing so in a place and environment of its choosing.

Though they would have faced a really bad day indeed if the mob called in the police and went by the book. So you can thank the mob that they did not act like the NBA and actually physically ruin a persons life because of his personal disrespectful attitude.

The mob should have absolutely acted by the book and called the police, and the police should have in turn waited till the movie was over (assuming they weren't any other pressing crimes like murder, rape, theft etc that they had to respond to) to speak to the family, obtained their side of the story, collected all the evidence, taken everyone's information and sent a notification to appear in court once the prosecutor had determined whether or not a legal case should be/could be filed.

Also, an employee in the US does have the option to take discrimination on the basis of religion to court, and the SCOTUS has made various rulings that protect speech (such as not standing up during a national anthem or insulting martyred soldiers at their funeral/memorial).
Snyder v. Phelps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see you are again going on by what you heard or your personal interpretation and assumption. The family definitely did not act passively. A passive act would be not to attend the cinema in the first place if they knew staying seated was a contravention of the law of the land. Or they could go to another state where it isnt the law of the land or cinemas dont play the anthem at the beginning.

Not standing is a passive act - announcing out loud why you are not standing and why you disagree with the national anthem in movie theater might constitute a public disturbance and deliberate and active instigation.

When you are living somewhere, you follow the rules of the land there.....quite simple.

The rules of the land also involve presumptions of innocence till proven guilty, and certain government institutions being responsible for implementation of said rules, unless these don't apply in India of course.

Now I don't agree with what the mob did, they should have got the cinema managers to evict these people.

End of discussion - the mob was out of line - that's my point. Allegations against the family should have been taken up with management or the correct government institution and the process for establishing guilt and/or taking punitive action followed as required under law.

There are tons of cases where disrespect in a public setting attracts immediate wrath and mob justice, in the developed more "civilised" world. I have seen it in Canada, I've seen it in the US...and it is done whichever race, colour, creed the perpetrator is from. It is a worldwide phenomenon and while we may not like mob vigilantism, it is part of the real world....and no country is better than another in this regard.

All such acts that occur in the West are just as condemnable. I did not state that the West was a Utopia with no ills whatsoever, but that it has evolved further than many societies in the East, and is continuing to evolve, positively and negatively. Keep in mind that the kinds of people who participate on message boards cheering acts of mob violence in the West belong to the diseased mindset that is present in every society. The question is one of whether society and government can keep such attitudes in check and minimize the potential for tangible harm from such a mindset.

Seriously ? You need a court to establish that these people did not stand up?

Guilt needs to be established under the very laws you are alleging these people of violating - your desire to bypass the system in establishing guilt and inflicting punitive actions upon the family is just as much, if not greater, a disregard of your nation's laws and constitution as is the alleged refusal to stand up for a national anthem. In fact, the aspects of the constitution and laws you wish to disregard have a tangible negative impact on others, and are therefore far more severe.

A bald headed, pot bellied middle aged man yelling does NOT constitute a mob! If it does then my dad subjects me to mob violence every couple months. I need to contact the government,

A bunch of people joining said man in support and standing around and taking no action to prevent said bald, pot-bellied man from harassing and threatening a family with a child is a mob, and a threatening situation for the family. The whole situation looks pretty threatening to me, and I can only imagine that it was even more threatening in person for the family with women and a child.

But this is the crux of the matter! And it seems to be non- debatable.

Demographics have no bearing on the fact that the mob harassing and threatening the family should be condemned, as should those disrespecting the constitution and violating laws in arguing against due process being followed (to establish the guilt of the family).

 

[Nilgiri]

The mob in the theater did nothing of the sort that the NBA did - the NBA did not surround the man and his family at a game with a mob and demand he do XYZ.

The NBA basically acted exactly like this mob in the sense that the majority enforced their views on a minority extra-judicially. They did so non-violently....and so did this mob.

The discussions with the player (whatever they were) occurred in private and under whatever rules and mechanisms the NBA has established.

They were done extra-judicially and with verbal coercion and threats....to get an individual to literally play ball...with what they personally deemed to be the appropriate level of respectful behaviour. Don't kid yourself that changing the setting to private instead of public somehow changes everything when it comes to verbal coercion and threats, instigated by clear perceived disrespect to a majority/society at large.

The mob should have absolutely acted by the book and called the police, and the police should have in turn waited till the movie was over (assuming they weren't any other pressing crimes like murder, rape, theft etc that they had to respond to) to speak to the family, obtained their side of the story, collected all the evidence, taken everyone's information and sent a notification to appear in court once the prosecutor had determined whether or not a legal case should be/could be filed.

Also, an employee in the US does have the option to take discrimination on the basis of religion to court, and the SCOTUS has made various rulings that protect speech (such as not standing up during a national anthem or insulting martyred soldiers at their funeral/memorial).

Should have, would have, could have. If it has bothered the family so much, they can try suing everyone involved...no one is stopping them. Or they can take it on the chin, accept there are minimum requirements when they are in a Cinema and their anthem is playing, and act appropriately next time.....or stay away from such situations in the first place.

The best lessons in life often come free.

Not standing is a passive act - announcing out loud why you are not standing and why you disagree with the national anthem in movie theater might constitute a public disturbance and deliberate and active instigation.

You don't get to judge what is passive or not. You are just one person. The mob could just as easily say they were being passive in response. They were just verbally talking to those involved....no physical contact anywhere.

The rules of the land also involve presumptions of innocence till proven guilty, and certain government institutions being responsible for implementation of said rules, unless these don't apply in India of course.

People don't take other people to the govt for every infraction of the law or etiquette....thats just common human nature.

They do something non-violent and passive. You also respond with something non-violent and passive. No one got into a shoving match or physical violence here....and the matter was settled with some bruised egos on the instigator's side.

End of discussion - the mob was out of line - that's my point. Allegations against the family should have been taken up with management or the correct government institution and the process for establishing guilt and/or taking punitive action followed as required under law.

The mob is out of line only if you agree the instigators were out of line (as far as we can tell). For every reaction there is a cause. No one should be in the business of issuing a summary verdict on assigning entire guilt to solely one party of a dispute/altercation on the basis of a small clip.....unless they were physically present.

All such acts that occur in the West are just as condemnable. I did not state that the West was a Utopia with no ills whatsoever, but that it has evolved further than many societies in the East, and is continuing to evolve, positively and negatively. Keep in mind that the kinds of people who participate on message boards cheering acts of mob violence in the West belong to the diseased mindset that is present in every society. The question is one of whether society and government can keep such attitudes in check and minimize the potential for tangible harm from such a mindset.

Fine. All I am saying is that human nature is the same everywhere in the world at a base level. You can't expect absolutely everyone to run to the police and law when they have been disrespected....and we are not in a position to judge them from afar when we have an incomplete picture to go on.

 

[Jamwal's]

I was wondering, before the national anthem is actually played in such a movie theatre...is there a statement like "Please rise for the national anthem" etc...or does the anthem just start out of nowhere?

Alebit the state law their is no need of national anthem in a movie theater playing a Rated A film for all we know, however honoring the NA is the duty of every citizen irrespective of religion.

 

[Joe Shearer]

[(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of 4 [the sovereignty and integrity of India,] the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.] (3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of 4 [the sovereignty and integrity of India or] public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The NBA basically acted exactly like this mob in the sense that the majority enforced their views on a minority extra-judicially. They did so non-violently....and so did this mob.

The NBA acted within laws and according to the processes set out under the laws of the State - there was no 'extra-judicial enforcement' of anything.

The only way any equivalence could be made with the situation under discussion is if the mob had chosen to remain silent and voiced their concerns to the management of the theater and let them deal with it under the laws. Instead they chose to harass, intimidate and disturb public order to force the family out of the theater. There is no comparison here to the NBA situation.

They were done extra-judicially and with verbal coercion and threats....to get an individual to literally play ball...with what they personally deemed to be the appropriate level of respectful behaviour. Don't kid yourself that changing the setting to private instead of public somehow changes everything when it comes to verbal coercion and threats, instigated by clear perceived disrespect to a majority/society at large.

What exactly was this 'extra-judicial act with verbal coercion and threats'? Did the player approach the courts with charges against the NBA over this alleged coercion and threats, or are you just making it up as you go?

Should have, would have, could have. If it has bothered the family so much, they can try suing everyone involved

They should, and they'll win (once it gets into the higher courts on appeal if necessary) with even a half decent lawyer.

...no one is stopping them. Or they can take it on the chin, accept there are minimum requirements when they are in a Cinema and their anthem is playing, and act appropriately next time.....or stay away from such situations in the first place.

The family behaved decently, even the allegation of not standing up during the anthem is unproven. It is the mob surrounding them and the theater management that lacked civility, decency and harassed the family and forced them to leave.

The best lessons in life often come free.

Mob rule is hardly a good lesson of any kind.

You don't get to judge what is passive or not. You are just one person. The mob could just as easily say they were being passive in response. They were just verbally talking to those involved....no physical contact anywhere.

Direct confrontation, harassment and hostile statements resulting in the family moving is by no yardstick a 'passive response'. The mob, inflamed, instigated and directly harassed and threatened the safety of the family by their actions. The family did not 'act', it was the 'lack of an action' that the rabid extremists in the theater took umbrage over.

People don't take other people to the govt for every infraction of the law or etiquette....thats just common human nature.

Civilized people don't resort to mob rule and threats of mob violence when their 'sentiments are hurt' either. The mob could have chosen to report the incident to management and allowed them to act under the law as deemed fit, which they did not.

They do something non-violent and passive. You also respond with something non-violent and passive. No one got into a shoving match or physical violence here....and the matter was settled with some bruised egos on the instigator's side.

A non-violent and passive response would have been to quietly inform the theater management or law enforcement, not disturb public order, harass, intimidate and threaten a family with a mob.

The mob is out of line only if you agree the instigators were out of line (as far as we can tell).

The onus is on the accuser to establish guilt. Without establishing the guilt of the family (with respect to the allegations against them), the mobs actions are unjustified and condemnable.

Fine. All I am saying is that human nature is the same everywhere in the world at a base level. You can't expect absolutely everyone to run to the police and law when they have been disrespected....and we are not in a position to judge them from afar when we have an incomplete picture to go on.

You're doing more than that - you're defending mob rule over a really ridiculous 'hurt sentiments' violation of the law argument. The family did not do anything other than remain seated in a movie theater - the mob made the decision to get inflamed over the absence of an act and made the decision to harass and intimidate the family.

You can support the law requiring 'standing during the anthem' all you want (even though it infringes upon freedom of speech) but your position of implicitly or explicitly supporting mob threats, violence and intimidation is no different from the positions taken by people defending mob violence, threats and intimidation against Ahmadis and alleged blasphemers in Pakistan.

 

[GreenGuy]

Disrespecting a national anthem is wrong. That family shouldn't have done that irrespective of religion or race etc.
People even stand up for other nation's anthems so why show anger towards your own country's anthem?
There are other ways to protest as well(assuming that it was some kind of protest from that family).

But the mob's reaction is also not justified. They should have informed the cinema authorities and pressurized them to take them out.
Situation could have escalated if it was some bunch of guys rather than a family if it was handled the same way.

Before launching a protest like this one should keep in mind that people get over reactive over national things.

Bad handling on both ends but it could have avoided had the family not tried to protest like this.
But someone should also get the family's point of view about the reasons of their protest.

 

[Hulk]

Why highlight their religion, similar treatment would have been meted out to any idiot. And its not like they had "Muslim" written on their forehead.

Exactly what kind of people disrespect the national anthem.

 

[Butchcassidy]

I am outraged, will ask barkha to make an hour long 9:00 clock chutiyapa on this.
Will call it "we the chutiyas: are our theatres safe for the minorities"
Also will return the imaginary award the government gave me.
I am outraged

 

[Nilgiri]

The NBA acted within laws and according to the processes set out under the laws of the State - there was no 'extra-judicial enforcement' of anything.

Still waiting to hear how the mob acted outside the law then. Both coerced verbally to impose a result they deemed necessary....outside of a court of law and outside of the legal process.

Did the player approach the courts with charges against the NBA over this alleged coercion and threats, or are you just making it up as you go?

So did this family go to the courts complaining about "harrassment" "disruption of public order" or anything of the sort? They even have what was said on video (some of it)...but they know full well they open themselves up to prosecution if they do.

Similar thing goes for the Basketball player.

Just because someone doesn't take someone else to court, doesn't mean we can't read between the lines as to what happened.

When he clearly publicly declared the US flag and anthem representing a "tyranical" country and therefore one he would not honour...he got a one game suspension (already punitive punishment he could have taken to court) and then came to an agreement that he would "stand".....what he did while standing was up to him. What do you think was said to him to get him to behave that way...judging from the before or after? Of course it was a threat of some sort, veiled or direct.

Compare this to the mob (which may or may not have had management involved). Did they at any point make a threat of physical violence? Or were they simply loudly asking for this family to leave the premise?

They should, and they'll win (once it gets into the higher courts on appeal if necessary) with even a half decent lawyer.

Doubt that. They will also open themselves up for prosecution...and judging from lack of video of what happened before....we have only the witnesses in the rest of the cinema to go by as to how it all started (the actual instigation). I think anyone can see how that will turn out. They will bring down maybe some of the mob, but they will definitely suffer the brunt of the damage in any legal case.

That's why you wont see anything happen most likely.

The family behaved decently, even the allegation of not standing up during the anthem is unproven. It is the mob surrounding them and the theater management that lacked civility, decency and harassed the family and forced them to leave.

Decent behaviour would be not instigating people around you recklessly and for no reason. They were defiant to the end...but the mob never resorted to physical violence anywhere and as far as I can see, no threats of physical harm were made. They were told to get out by those that gathered around them....and they eventually obliged.

Bad behaviour all around....but hey who started all of it? There are plenty of other avenues to raise dissent against the mainstream.....a cinema with your kids there is not one of them.

Mob rule is hardly a good lesson of any kind.

It is when the lesson hopefully will prevent a repeat case who's results may be unpredictable. Either stand up for the anthem or dont come in the first place.

Direct confrontation, harassment and hostile statements resulting in the family moving is by no yardstick a 'passive response'.

Same can be said of breaking the law (and showing major disrespect simultaneously) in the first place on purpose and quite brazenly in full view of a whole gathering of people.

Either both sides were passive, or both sides weren't. You dont get to say one was "correct" and "passive" and the other the opposite. You weren't there to have gained enough evidence of the whole scenario to make such a statement of differentiation.

Its like seeing an altercation in which someone is getting beaten up. You have no context to what the person getting beaten up did in the first place....so you cannot make any moral judgement about who was more in the wrong till you have the full picture.

The mob, inflamed, instigated and directly harassed and threatened the safety of the family by their actions.

I see the family (well the man) simply arguing back for a while and then leaving with family in tow. At most they lost some dignity, their egos got deflated and they were humiliated....but it was all stuff coming back from what they instigated...like an arrow you shoot straight up in the air.

If they put themselves in potential danger, they have only themselves to blame in the first place (the adults of the family).

You don't walk outside dragging the flag of the country you are in on the ground either..and expect no response. Thats also a passive action according to you....but people will stop you and ask you to stop it....and if keep continuing it, you are simply asking for a mob to form depending on the number of people in the vicinity.

A very much scaled down version of this:

Dont act stupid in the first place, period.

Civilized people don't resort to mob rule and threats of mob violence when their 'sentiments are hurt' either. The mob could have chosen to report the incident to management and allowed them to act under the law as deemed fit, which they did not.

All well and good for you to say, as long as you agree the family adults were equally uncivilized in being so stupid in the first place.

Its your differentiation I have the issue with. Stupid people came in and did something stupid, expecting to get away with it. People act rashly and angrily towards them as a result till the stupid people leave the scene. No ones morally superior here....and no one got hurt physically. Life goes on....and everyone doesn't give a damn whether some person on the internet thinks their society is civilised or isnt.

A non-violent and passive response would have been to quietly inform the theater management or law enforcement, not disturb public order, harass, intimidate and threaten a family with a mob.

All depends on your definition of "non-violence" and "passivity". I see no instance of violence here at any point. Disrespecting a host nation's symbol so brazenly is not exactly "passive" either.The public order was disturbed initially by this family deciding to break the law in full view of everyone. Everything else was a reaction to that. Everyone is guilty here. The family doesn't get to come off clean after instigating the whole affair in the first place.

The onus is on the accuser to establish guilt. Without establishing the guilt of the family (with respect to the allegations against them), the mobs actions are unjustified and condemnable.

If you want to say the family did everything by the book (rose for the anthem etc..) and this mob formed out of thin air and started shouting at them for absolutely no reason.....thats a view you are free to hold.

I do not circumscribe to the view given the pretext the video was first captured in, the related info that it is hence tagged with and the fact at the end of the video....many people not part of the mob were clapping.

So again the family can take this to court if they have truly been wronged. Till that point we have technically only hearsay to go upon about the background....but that extends for any case of "public disorder" that is captured halfway.

It will be quite telling if this family doesn't take anything to court....seeing how this video technically shows only them being harassed. The public will take it as an admission of guilt of instigation if they do nothing. Its as simple as that.

You're doing more than that - you're defending mob rule over a really ridiculous 'hurt sentiments' violation of the law argument.

People are sentimental beings. If a particular family did not care that there are boundaries they must respect....that is their own stupidity. I'm not defending anyone here. They are all equally responsible for what happened.

The family did not do anything other than remain seated in a movie theater - the mob made the decision to get inflamed over the absence of an act and made the decision to harass and intimidate the family.

Absence of an act? If anyone wears a Westboro Baptist Church T-Shirt and goes around just doing their regular non-violent, passive business claiming "absence of an act" when they get harrassed/confronted by someone...they are going to get laughed at.....plain and simple. You are responsible for the actions and non-actions you do depending on the situation. Doing nothing is just as bad as doing something in many situations.....it depends on the details.

One does not go around wearing a Mohammed Cartoon shirt in the middle of Saudi Arabia.....or a shirt with Hitler on it in Israel....and claim "absence of an act" when they go inside a gathering of people (being passive and non-violent at all times)...and the inevitable happens.

Its nowhere near as extreme what this family did....but its the same kind of stupidity....and the response was definitely proportional and fair from the crowd (in my opinion). It could have been a lot worse....and the family should never have counted on it being a lot better if they truly care for their kids.

You can support the law requiring 'standing during the anthem' all you want (even though it infringes upon freedom of speech) but your position of implicitly or explicitly supporting mob threats, violence and intimidation is no different from the positions taken by people defending mob violence, threats and intimidation against Ahmadis and alleged blasphemers in Pakistan.

You are free to hold that view. I simply go by what I see in the practical world of Human existence.

Never have I once seen someone here in Canada not stand to attention for their National anthem.....whether you identify with the country or not. If you don't, you still stand so as to not stick out and cause friction with those around you for no reason. Its common decency and respect....and you certainly dont make your children part of your little stunt either.

Take that crap elsewhere or do it by yourself....take responsibility for it and prepare to face the consequences.

If you really want to go against the grain, you have to be ready for a lot of mobs on your plate each time you do it. Its simply human nature. This is true worldwide....but the levels of what set off a mob are what are different. This particular incident had nothing to do with religion, race, caste, creed or anything like that. If this family were Hindu, Christian, Atheist...whatever...they would have been just as equally told to leave the premise.

 

[Bang Galore]

Too many here going on about how the law should have been involved. The outcome that happened was the best one for the family once they found themselves in this situation. Had the cops been involved, there is no saying where it would have ended up. The least that would have happened is that the identities of the family members would have been made public & that would have no good outcome to it. Atleast this way, they can go about the rest of their lives without this incident hanging like a sword above their heads. The video as shot would make it very difficult for anyone to identify them & would disappear from the public eye in a day or two. Had the cops been involved, the legal issues would have been the least of the problems that this family would face. For a very long time.

 

[jaunty]

I was wondering, before the national anthem is actually played in such a movie theatre...is there a statement like "Please rise for the national anthem" etc...or does the anthem just start out of nowhere?

When I was in Mumbai, at first it took me by surprise if I remember correctly because I hadn't seen that before anywhere. But everyone knows that you stand up during the national anthem. I found it really stupid but that's not an excuse to be seated.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

A bald headed, pot bellied middle aged man yelling does NOT constitute a mob! If it does then my dad subjects me to mob violence every couple months. I need to contact the government,

.

I am a victim of house intolerance getting yells once a week Even if my dad forgets my mom never misses to fill in that week