Hundreds evacuated from Wolverhampton cinema after film protest
Hundreds of people had to be evacuated from Cineworld Wolverhampton after 50 protestors turned up and staged a sit-in over the screening of a controversial film.
Police had to be called and the cinema cleared and closed after the protestors surged through the main entrance and headed for the screen showing Bollywood blockbuster, Nanak Shah Fakir.
Once inside, the Sikh campaigners sat down on the floor and began to shout, refusing to move until cinema bosses met their demands and stopped the screening.
The drama unfolded at the multiplex at Bentley Bridge, Wednesfield, at 5.30pm on Sunday.
Bosses at Cineworld have apologised to customers and offered full refunds to those affected.
Nanak Shah Fakir, which is directed by Sartaj Singh Pannu and narrated by Arif Zakaria, has been mired in controversy since its release last week.
It stems from a depiction of the Guru and other religious figures in human form, which is considered to be a blasphemous violation of religious doctrine by many Sikhs.
It has been banned in many parts of India and attracted mass protests, while some UK cinemas have refused to show it through fear of offending religious sentiments.
Cineworld said it has no plans to show the film in future following the incident. Posters advertising the film have since been removed from the cinema's walls.
Some cinema goers were left frightened by the episode. One man, who asked not to be named, said he was among dozens of customers asked to leave the multiplex when the commotion ensued.
He said: "It was extremely intimidating. For a group of people to be able to get a film stopped and then banned is just ridiculous.
"It's an attack on freedom of speech. The atmosphere was quite aggressive in there and it's not what you expect to face when you go and watch a film."
Cineworld spokeswoman Liz Larvin, said: "We can confirm that customers were asked to leave our Wolverhampton cinema due to a small protest.
"We apologised and offered those customers affected a full refund. The police were called to the cinema and we are currently working closely with them to investigate.
"We have taken the decision to cancel screenings of Nanak Shah Fakir because we want our customers to enjoy visiting our cinemas and experience a wide range of films without disruption from others.
"We apologise to anyone disappointed by this decision and to those customers impacted on Sunday."
Earlier this year, a petition was lodged with the Indian High Court objecting the film's release.
Subscribe to our NewsletterComments for: "Hundreds evacuated from Wolverhampton cinema after film protest"
Crusader42
This no different to Charlie Hedbo. If the opponents have objections to the film, that's fine but they have no right whatsoever to prevent it being shown and intimidate those who wish to see it. This is totally against British democratic principles and the perpetrators should be punished accordingly. It is important for the whole of society too, that the Cinema's management reverse their decision to cancel future screenings, otherwise it gives a clear message to other groups that similar courses of action will also result in their favour; this is unacceptable.
Crusader42
Yes Cyril. There are a lot of things in present day society which contradict my own upbringing and beliefs too but that does not give me the right to enforce my views as others are doing, and ,I am British by centuries of ancestry. It would seem that relatively passive people such as myself and the millions of others with "it will all work out in the end mentality" , perhaps, now need to review their stance, and become pro-active in neutralizing this malevolent undercurrent against our Western norms and culture. May St. George rise again to fight his dragons.
anthony.powis1
Some people are so narrow minded aren't they. Quite simply its only a film, if you don't like it don't watch it, and leave people who want to watch it in peace, neanderthals!
CoRnIsHWoLf
Try understanding the religion before commenting on something you don't understand.
bilodave
If understanding was the criteria you would be mute.
Leon
Intimidation and aggression, not traits associated with spiritual people, maybe these fanatics should look in the mirror first before behaving so badly. There is more than one way to make your point without resorting to aggressive and intimating tactics.
billyjosaunders
What silly people, I can't believe they have managed to stop the cinema from showing the film altogether.
The funny thing is the film does not show Guru Nanak in a negative light in any way but a very positive one. It shows people how the Sikh religion was founded, it gives an idea to those who have no idea about Sikhism what the religion is about.
Those religious nutters protesting about the film should have stayed at home, they do not represent the view of the Sikh majority but an extremist minority.
Danimal
Brilliant.
You don't agree with my religion - I kill you.
How peaceful and understanding of you. Well done.
Pretty much what all religion boils down to.
JusticeMaster2000
They didn't kill anyone.
They protested at a film.
I don't agree with them, they should be locked up. But they didn't kill anyone, so stop fuelling your own hatred with such silly hyperbole.
CoRnIsHWoLf
Ha,ha,ha, where does it mention in this article about anybody threatening to 'kill' anyone?
samross301
Haha yeah but you know they would and the cinemas do otherwise they would continue to show it.
CoRnIsHWoLf
You should try 'education' samross301, you are obviously in dire need of it.
BrownedOff
So where's all the bloodshed? How many were arrested for attacking cimemagoers? Get real!
You ask a few people who were put out by the incident and make it appear that World war III was about to break out.
It was a protest by a group of people who felt offended by the movie. It's a free country and everyone has the right to protest. Or are there people out there who feel we should lose this right?
Shame it had to come to this, but I've not heard of what seems a generally peaceful religion being elevated to the ranks of extremism - as we have seen from other religions. So let's keep it in perspective. OK?
billyjosaunders
If they felt offended by the movie (which is not offensive in any way) they should have stayed at home. Or they should have protested outside the cinema instead of barging their way in, intimidating other cinema goers and causing the cinema to be evacuated and closed.
All religions have extremists and the behaviour of those protesting comes across as extremist.
Who knows what would have happened if the cinema refused to give in to the demands of these nutters and continued to show the film? This type of behaviour is totally unacceptable and the cinema should not stop screening the film to please this minority.
bilodave
You can peacefully protest outside. Stopping the showing is intimidation and against free speech in a democracy. Or are you too stupid to see that?
BrownedOff
What I'm against are drama queens. Seems you are one too.
More emphatically, we are living in an age where the media like to jump on stories and blow them up out all proportion.
Whether or not I agree with the protest, it's the fact that it makes for sensationalism when you only focus on a few people who were really put out and you ignore the opinions of all other moviegoers.
And on the subject of sensationalism, and if you need evidence, just watch one of those tv programmes that only focus on people living on benefits. The really decent people who are struggling with life, and suffering for it, do not get a look in. Instead, the TV companies focus on people on benefits whop have 'questionable' attitudes and lifestyles. After all, it makes for better TV for the short-sighted and ignorant viewer if we see benefit claimants who bring all their kind into disrepute.
Hence, we have the so-called drama where Sikhs invade Cineworld and they are then portrayed as ghastly villains with no respect for the community as a whole.
If you want to read about some REAL victims of society's attitude to the poor, the vulnerable and the sick and weak, just visit my website.
The clue is in my username. Just add a .com to it.
Crusader42
Whilst I agree that there is a lot of exaggeration and, sometimes, make belief in the media, I do not believe this storey is one of those. I also believe that E and S has a good record of objective reporting over the many years I have read it. I will endeavour to read your website but the majority of Sikhs in the UK are neither vulnerable nor poor but certainly the group in the cinema did the wrong thing and this is the issue now.
bilodave
I agree that people on benefits are demonised unfairly, what that has got to do with this story I don't know. I'm not a drama queen as you put it but I am concerned that our freedoms built up over centuries are under threat. I didn't agree with the Christians who objected to life of Brian either, I presume you did being as you are on the side of religious extremists in this story.
BrownedOff
Bilodave. I never said I supported this particular protest. I did say that I defended the right to protest.
Different people will have a different perspective on what is an acceptable form of protest, and what is unacceptable. I'm not going to be judge and jury on a protest I have only read about in the Express & Star ("the E&S"). If the E&S had reported more astutely and garnered more opinions form those affected by the protest, we'd have been given a more balanced view of the incident. And did anyone from the E&S bother to speak to the Sikh community and ask their opinion?
Sadly, there are folk in our society who think that because someone dares to question the limited facts of this story that it makes them appear as though they support the type of behaviour that was demonstrated. This does not make me a supporter of religious extremism, and for you to accuse me of such just shows how ignorant and stupid you are.
As for the line on people on benefits, I was simply using that as an example of how a one-sided and discriminating view of such people can distort the observers views on all benefit claimants. So the same is with these Sikh protestors. Just because some have decided to make what was a non-violent but disruptive protest does not make them religious extremists. I would say we should reserve the word extremist not just for those who are committing atrocities around the world, but to those who also are not concerned with the whole truth and make inflammatory racist statements.
Finally, bilodave, if you want to jump on the racist bandwagon and condemn some people out-of-hand, then it tells me (at least) that you are not worthy of any further comment.
bilodave
You are a self regarding twit aren't you. I've seen your website and I think the way the DWP operate is a disgrace but for you to call others idiots and drama queens when one views your self pleading is a bit rich. I know people who've been "atossed" including a cousin who died of cancer soon after being refused dla, ( they thought it was a hernia). I'm not a racist either but people like you always default to that particular name calling when you've lost the argument. Thank goodness you are not going to reply.
CoRnIsHWoLf
What's the point of protesting outside? They felt strongly enough in their views that the film should not be shown & they demonstrated this by, what I read as, a non violent protest. Some people may have felt intimidated by their actions but if you feel strongly & passionate enough about something, as long as there is no violence toward anyone or damage to property, then you must have the courage of your convictions & belief.
As I recall there was far more trouble at cinemas when the 'Life of Brian' was screened............Damn Christians!
bilodave
So if you were watching a film on controversial issues you wouldn't mind if a crowd invaded the cinema and forced you to leave and suspended screening of the film? That's what I call craven but it fits in with your other posts on this site. You either agree with freedom of speech or you don't. Evidently you don't.
Hemispheres
I agree entirely with your post on The life of Brian, this film was banned and protested against 30 odd years ago. An act that we find, amusingly backward and old fashioned. We like to think we have grown up a bit since then as a society, but maybe that is just some of us?
charlie17
CornishWolf would you therefore condone the EDL taking their protest into a Mosque.
CoRnIsHWoLf
So Bilo, if you felt strongly enough about anything, I guess you'd write a really harsh letter then? Good for you, freedom of speech an' all that........by the way, is this the freedom of speech that we're allowed to have along certain 'guidelines' by our government then?....................& weren't the protesters displaying their 'freedom of speech'?
bilodave
No the moment they illegally entered that cinema they were NOT displaying freedom of speech. Again you are too dim to realise this. Protest outside, write to the cinema owners, film distributors their MP'S the local and national media. Many other things they could have done first DO NOT take the law into your own hands because others may do the same to you one day. Can't you see even now your argument is terminally flawed?
brecon
What about the rights of the people who wanted to enjoy a movie with family?
You are not the only one with rights!
I thought sikhs were supposed to be peaceloving? Disturbing the peace brings the sikh religion into disrepute.
It's absolutely shameful that these people disturbed the peace of others why didn't they go and protest at the film studio offices?
Sikh leaders should come out and deplore the actions of their followers and give them an education on showing respect.
Crusader42
Browned Off. I think you have missed the point. We are all for the right to protest but this was an act of deliberately sabotaging the actual rights of a legitimate entertainment business and its patrons because the protagonists did not agree with something the film portrayed. Although I agree the subject religion involved is generally a peaceful one, the incident concerned was certainly intimidation and threatening seemingly resulting in future screenings of the film being cancelled. Frankly, this is unsatisfactory and bearing in mind that members of the religion do not have to watch it, the screenings should resume without Charlie Hebdo style retribution.
samross301
But what about the rights of the people who want to watch the film? if they want to protest do it outside not inside the cinema just to stop others watching it!!!
samross301
Also do you think we could protest in India about anything? no that is why we are a stupid tolerant idiotic nation and one day we are going to be told what to do and when to do it by people who come from far off lands and we won't be able to do anything about it because there will be more of them then us.
W C Boggs
Why not protest peacefully outside the cinema?
In addition - if no arrests were made, why not?
Another great day for community relations.
bilodave
Another wonderful advertisement for mass immigration.
billyjosaunders
The majority of Sikhs are against this type of behaviour and support the film being shown. It's got nothing to do with mass immigration.
CoRnIsHWoLf
Cretin!
bilodave
Well you would know wouldn't you.
CoRnIsHWoLf
In your case, yes!
Thomas
How dare these people come here, take advantage of our generous democratic society, call us racists every time they don't get their own way, then go and behave in this manner when something happens that they don't approve of. Why oh why oh why do we keep on tolerating the intolerant? What should have happened ... the police should have moved them out of the cinema, and made arrests if necessary, and Cineworld should have the courage to show what it chooses. This behaviour is gout to become more and more the norm in this country as these intolerants obtain more and more power. How stupid we are!
billyjosaunders
The protest was from a minority of Sikhs and in no way portrays the view of the majority of Sikhs in this country. There are extremists in all religions, you only have to look at the likes of The EDL and Britain First to put matters into perspective.
JusticeMaster2000
"these people"?
Vlad_The_Man
"take advantage of our generous democratic society"- hahah- the same democratic society that is the root cause of pretty much all modern-day geopolitical tensions: India/Pakistan, Middle East, Ireland, Malvinas (Falklands), Iraq, Libya....I could carry on and on....
bilodave
Yes because there was no trouble between Muslim, Hindu and Sikh before the British arrived was there? No trouble between Shiah, Sunni And Alawite before the British arrived in the Middle East!
CoRnIsHWoLf
Do you not remember the 'Life of Brian' Thomas? Bloody Christians taking advantage of their own generous democratic society..........send 'em all home!............oh, hang on a minute.....
bilodave
So tell us whose side you were on it that issue then.
CoRnIsHWoLf
Brian's........
samross301
What do you mean ' They felt strongly enough in their views that the film should not be shown'? who are they to decide that? a handful of people? there are a lot of thing's in life i do not want to be shown but i have to consider others especially in another country.
samross301
So true but then you have idiotic Brits who will speak out for them and foreigners know this of the Dumb Brits.
middley
Putting aside why they did this for, it raises a security issue, they could have been anybody and we could have been reading a different story today, thankfully not ! They should not have been allowed in the screen where the film was being shown, the cinema has a duty of care to it's customers. for all they knew they could have been terrorists. So because a minority have thrown their dummies out the cinema stops the film and won't be showing it, shows how far it's gone in this country, it's about time we stood up for these things in this country and stop bowing down to them !
Shewolf
Whilst we may not agree with the protest and see it as an infringement of our own Freedoms, this is a much more civilised response than say,Charlie Hebdo.
Put it in perspective.
brecon
A lesser wrong doesn't make it right
billyjosaunders
The Charlie Hebdo incident involved mocking the prophet Mohammed. This film the Sikh extremists were protesting against was not mocking their Gurus but showing their Guru in a very favourable and positive way. I'm just pointing out the difference.
Shewolf
Incorrect- both episodes were about what Muslims and Sikhs deem against their religion-namely the physical representation of their chosen deity.
However, the response of the Sikh community is much more moderate and in keeping with Article rights to protest.
Sir Lupi
Who's Guru Nanak??
samross301
What a pathetic country this is to bow down to 50 sikhs who caused mayhem in the cinema.The police should of frogmarched them out and arrested every single one.What hypocrisy from Liz Larvin cineworld spokeswoman who said they have have cancelled the film.What cowards,what about freedom of speech? what about all the talk about nobody will stop our way of life? well 50 siks have.And still people will tell us how it is so good to have a multicultural society.With acts like this we are heading for a fall.
Boinggobaggies
And this is different in what way to the EDL and Britain First marching on Dudley ? These people stormed a property and entered unlawfully brought a business to a halt cost police time and money and and caused chains of business time and money in lost revenue and emergency messures to pull the film yet not a bad word can be said.
The EDL and Britain First are an unfortunate minority of our society yet the E&S published a story yesterday slating them severely for protesting peacefully might I add on their last march in Dudley saying how they cost business and police time and money yet the option to comment was taken away they considered their views to be right yet nothing of the sort here as its a different section of our society Its political correctness gone made.
TheMediaCrell
Yeah, it is funny how certain articles are wide open to comment yet others are locked the moment they're authored.
TheMediaCrell
Can you just imagine it had the EDL protested inside a cinema.. something along the lines of 'Angry right-wing mob targets families peacefully watching a film'..or how about 'The day our world turned to hell: Family man recounts the moment militant thugs invaded cinema'..'At what price freedom to protest? Parties unite as fascist mob turns up and causes huge loss of earnings' You get the picture. In fact, why doesn't the E&S just pretend they're all UKIP voters who were protesting.. wouldn't that be something to get their teeth into?
middley
Media Crell I agree with both your comments ! I was just listening to a radio (local) and a Sikh chap just told a bare faced lie (if these reports are right) saying that they protested outside the cinema not inside, and the reporter hadn't got the balls to push him on the question, so it was all made up then and the cinema wasn't evacuated then ? the Sikh also said the Guru can only be depicted in an animated form (whatever that means)
CoRnIsHWoLf
You answered your own question when mentioning 'fascist mob'!
TheMediaCrell
What if people followed their lead.. enter a mosque without invitation and do whatever it takes to loudly halt proceedings?
billyjosaunders
It's already happened, Britain First who call themselves a Christian group have invaded mosques many times, they storm into the mosque without removing their footwear and usually intimidate the handful of old men in the mosques which they enter at the quietest times, they hand out filthy racist literature attacking the very people in the mosque.
heart&soul
This article has been exaggerated hugely.
I don't see what the huge deal is. Firstly, to those of you saying Sikhs should have done something else other than protest; we did. The Akal Takhat Sahib (whose in charge of ally of the important decisions related to sikhism) actually said this film is against Sikhism but the producer went against the Akal Takhat Sahib and released the movie. The Sikh community sent emails to every cinema showing this movie. We rang the person in charge of showcasing this movie in Britain (Sunil Shah) but no ones gave a damn. To those of you saying we should have protested outside the cinema; we did that. The manager didn't come out to listen to us so we were left with no other option - we had to enter the cinema. Management wouldn't care if we were outside because we wouldn't be affecting them so realistically we had to go inside if we wanted to be heard.
Secondly, when we entered the cinema none of damaged any of the premises, no one used inappropriate language or violence. We simply went inside and voiced our opinions and when management refused to listen to us, we sat down and refused to leave until someone listened to it. You're saying this is wrong? Even the police and security told us they completely understood us and that our actions were completely justified.
Thirdly, there wasn't a handful of Sikhs against this movie. Around 95% of Sikhs worldwide were against the showing of this movie. You're saying it's not fair to those who wanted to see the movie but at the end even they agreed the movie is completely wrong. Those families asked us why we were protesting against the movie and we told them and explained our reasons to them. Those families actually dropped their tickets and started protesting with us.
Now many of you may be thinking 'it didn't portray Guru Nanak Dev Ji (the first Sikh Guru) as a bad person'. It didn't, however, it impersonates our Guru which against Sikh beliefs. We believe no one can impersonate our Guru so to us this is a mockery of our religion. Not only this, the Sikh holy scriptures have been recited wrong. Not only this but the movie shows people dancing and clapping to our holy scriptures. No one can tolerate anyone/anything making a mockery of their holy scriptures, whatever the religion is.
None of you have the right to call us Sikhs 'extremists'. We tried everything we could but at the end this is what it had come down to. Several times people have mocked our religion, our beliefs and our Martyrs - we stayed quiet because we believe in peace and didn't want to create a drama but this is when we had enough - it was the lowest of the low and quite frankly we've had enough.
Now you're segregating us Sikhs from your nation? We've had just as much input in building this nation just as much as you have. Us Sikhs have fought in World War I and World War II; over 83,005 turban wearing Sikhs were killed and 109,045 were wounded. You didn't care about Sikh extremists then right? When Sikhs go alongside the EDL to protests are we not extremists then? When we have lie input in democracy are But when for a change we defend ourselves and our religion we're extremists.
We're not extremists; we're peaceful people who want equality, peace and love. But we will also fight for justice and we will never tolerate a mockery of not just our religion but any religion.
bilodave
1 write to the E&S or ask to see the editor and ask for a retraction or an article giving more details and opinions.
2 if you March with EDL yes you are extremist.
3 the film was in no way illegal so you have absolutely no right in a democracy to force its removal.
4 I know all about the Sikh soldiers contribution to two world wars, they were excellent soldiers. Lord Birdwood wrote the regimental history of the Sikh Regiment in World War Two and I have read it. However there is no way you can justify your statement that you have contributed as much to the building of this nation over two thousand years as the British have. That makes your argument ridiculous.
middley
The police told you your actions were completely justified, I think their superior officer would want a say on that one, I would think the police might understand a protest but not condone it, ask the miners ! We know about Sikhs fighting in two world wars, but if Britain could pronounce to the world that we help build their nation, the amount of wars outside of Britain we would own half the world. Us of a nation have had enough of politics in one way or another, but could you see us being condoned to storm the Houses of Parliament or no 10 Downing street, and the Police saying, yes mate you are justified so no action will be taken yeh right !
Microman
heart&soul
"We're not extremists; we're peaceful people who want equality, peace and love. But we will also fight for justice and we will never tolerate a mockery of not just our religion but any religion."
Funny, that sounds like the same excuse made by every extremist.
CoRnIsHWoLf
As you say, 'it's a democracy', therefore they have every right to demonstrate against this movie being shown on the grounds that heart&soul stated.
bilodave
You really don't see how inconsistent and hypocritical your arguments are do you, but you accuse me of being a cretin. Storming a cinema is not free speech it is exactly the fascism you accuse others of. You were in favour of life of Brian and against the Christians who forced its banning at the time but you are in favour of the Sikh extremists who have succeeded in getting this film banned? Do you see the hypocrisy and double standards? I am against both forms of censorship but you pick and chose your censorship. Is this country's freedoms perfect? No but it's better than most countries but you are apparently too dim to see that but you probably feel you are "right on" in standing up for bigots of your own choosing. You agree with heart and soul who marches with the EDL? You really are a confused stupid individual aren't you.
CoRnIsHWoLf
'Storming a cinema'? Where does it say they 'stormed a cinema'? & where did I say I was in favour of the The Life of Brian & against Christians? You should work the newspapers, you have such a one eyed view of the truth. My comment of 'Brian's', was a light hearted comment about the main character in the movie. I should have know an imbecile like you would have a sense of humour vacancy.
As for our 'democracy' being better than most countries, unlike you I don't feel that is a reason for me to accept it's failings simply because the government of the day draws the lines.
On the EDL comment, I have no time for fascists, whichever hat they wear. Heart&soul is a Sikh who obviously understands his religion far better than you or I. He chose to voice his opinion against a movie which has been condemned by many of his faith worldwide. Far from being violent or aggressive it sounds like it involved a lot of 'sitting down & refusing to move', scary eh? I would back his right to do so in this instance & if he does indeed march with the EDL I would stand against him in that instance. Does that confuse you too much bilo or can you work it out all on your own?