Khaled hamada dating site
He finds the laws in Egypt to be flexible and takes advantage of this to benefit the artist.But he added that, dating from the1950’s, these laws are no longer relevant since the society has changed during the past fifty years.
What he wants to see is an open conflict on the ground between the censor and the artist.He accepts that amendments should possibly be made but says that not only is this a slow process, but if they are amended there is a danger of much more religious censorship.He believes that the present law is a good omen, allowing freedom and maintaining the morality of society at the same time.On the panel the argument kept returning to the question, should there be a censor?Abou Shadi sees it like this; “If I see a wall in front of me I don’t want to go into it. But others say, ‘Let’s go into the wall and see it collapse’.Yes, agreed Abou Shadi, the problem with self-censorship is that people want to play it safe and social censorship, which involves many law-suits, is much more dangerous than state censorship.
The state refers all cases to the public prosecutor, fearing that chaos might reign and that the Islamists will prevail.
In this context he cited the Ministry of Interior as a frequent example.
Shadi believes that if amendments to the law go through in Egypt, the result will not be an elimination of censorship.
Responding to Abou Shadi’s message, Ole Reitov suggested that most censors, afraid of taking risks and losing their jobs, tend to overdo the censorship.
Abou Shadi said that he had always acted without fear but did admit that he was removed as chief censor because the government wanted someone in the role whom they could manipulate.
He wants to create confidence by creating a good relationship with artists.