Was the British government in the film "Children of Men" justified in its actions?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

If you haven't seen Children of Men, it's a dystopian sci fi set in England in 2027. Basically the world has gone to , there's a massive world war going on: at the beggining we see a news story about "Day 1,000 of the seige of Seattle", and film showing most major cities being destroyed by war. Amid the carnage the entire world's male population has somehow become infertile.

The UK is the only state on Earth that has maintained sovereignty. Its borders are permanantly closed and it has what is essentially a neo-nazi government. It fills its populace up with propaganda of the theme "only Britain soldiers on". Illegal immigration is really high because of the situation in the rest of the world. The Government is extremely tough on the immigrants, rounding them up with a heavily armed police force/army and not caring much about casualties. They're sent to concentration camps, and on the way in the sick and others that are too dangerous to enter are seperated and murdered. The conditions in these concentration camps aren't actually that terrible, they're more like slums. They have sufficient food and water to live for example, just not a great quality of life.

These actions can be interpreted as unfortunately necessary. They have to create such a nationalistic atmosphere with propaganda, because otherwise everyone would go mental or commit suicide and the UK would collapse too. The immigrants can't be allowed in because they'd destroy the country (note that in the book immigrants are imported to work). They keep them in camps in the hope that one day the whole situation will be fixed and they can be released: it's better than whatever they fled from. All the while they're desperate to find a cure for this infertility and waiting for stablity to emerge abroad.

The "fishes" immigrant resistance movement on the other hand, while they certainly have good intentions, aren't really seeing the bigger picture are they?

What are your opinions of this?

[Dr. Croccer]

It boils down to whether the right to survive of the community is more important than that of the individual.

[Shneckie]

There was many elements of the policies implemented that I think were unnecessary. I agree with the heavy handed approach to immigration. I have no doubt that millions, if not, billions of people will be trying to enter the UK and I agree with the nationalistic propaganda. You would need something to be endeared to and unified from in such a dark time. But apart from that the Government should have seeked to a less authoritarian stance. For human civilisation to continue, you need to keep hold of some sort of humanity, even if its a little.

[Azog 150]

There's also the fact that we don't know what is going on in the outside world. All you hear throughout the film of whats going on outside the country is from government propaganda. There's no way of knowing how bad things are in the outside world, and the extent of the problems could easily have been exaggerated by the government to justify their brutal measures.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

There's also the fact that we don't know what is going on in the outside world. All you hear throughout the film of whats going on outside the country is from government propaganda. There's no way of knowing how bad things are in the outside world, and the extent of the problems could easily have been exaggerated by the government to justify their brutal measures.

That's what I keep reading everywhere, but surely the fact that millions of refugees are pouring in and confirming the government's story is proof enough?

Although if there was no proof it would add an interesting new level to the film.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Against the fugees? no

Against the fugee militias? of course it was.

But the problem with that movie is that we never get to know if Britain is a dictatorship or if it still holds it's parliamentary institutions... so making judgments is quite hard.

The propaganda machine blasting against Brits at every second tend to leads to believe that it's a dictatorship but truth is the same tactics can be applied by democratic governments if they find them necessary.

[Pious Agnost]

But the problem with that movie is that we never get to know if Britain is a dictatorship or if it still holds it's parliamentary institutions... so making judgments is quite hard.

In the book, the country is ruled by 5 unelected leaders and parliament exists in an advisory role.

Not seen the movie.

[Roloc]

I think it's the women that are infertile, not the men. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Claudius Gothicus]

In the book male sperm counts starts getting lower and lower.(according to wiki)

[Count of Montesano]

I think it's the women that are infertile, not the men. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought they really left it up in the air in the movie. It's been a while but I remember a scene where Clive Owen is talking with the older nurse, and she says nobody really knows how it started.

At any rate, if we start seeing one of the worst case scenarios for global warming, it's quite possible that northern countries like the US and UK could be slammed with refugees fleeing south. The worst case scenario is the Sahara engulfs most of North Africa and southern Spain and France become essentially the new Tunisia.That's a lot of people fleeing north.

[Poach]

I generally agree with the government's actions in the film: the United Kingdom seemed to be near collapse anyway, with security outside the major cities being essentially non-existant and domestic terror being a serious problem.

The UK Government is doing what a Government is supposed to do at it's very core: protect the interest of it's citizens. When times are good, the Government can look to the world and do what they can to help, but I got the impression the UK in the film was barely keeping it's head above water and, in a situation that dire, survival of the nation is prioritised over all else.

Hell, if I ran the UK with an internal situation that bad I would even keep the refugees in camps, I'd have the RN sinking on sight and the Army/Police executing the rest. Only when the Isles themselves were secure (which, in the film, they are far from) would I consider the plight of those attempting to enter the UK.

[Cesarz]

The UK government was definitely justified in it's actions, either the nation as a whole survives or a few individuals get to speak their mind or whatever it was that they wanted.
Their stance on refugees was also justified. The citizens should be protected, not the immigrants. Anyway, if the propaganda is true (and it obviously is if there are immigrants streaming in from across the world) then the camps are much better than where they came from so I don't see what either the citizens or the refugees can protest about.
Love it or bloody leave it.

[Jingles]

You people are totally forgetting that the "nation surviving" is BS anyway. Everyone living there is doomed anyway because of the infertility. The UK government in the film simply represents the richest slice of the country desperately trying to keep a hold of what they've got in the face of inevitible destruction. Did you not see that rich bastard in his government penthouse surrounded by pilfered works of priceless art? Somehow I think that the needs of the people are not high on their budget priority list.

It's unsettling to see how many people on here think that Nazism is essentially ok so long as there's some sort of poorly thought out justification for it.

In addition what everyone here seems to be forgetting is that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the actions of the government in the story are justified, because it's an allegory. You might as well ponder over whether Big Brother's actions are justified in 1984.

[Cesarz]

You people are totally forgetting that the "nation surviving" is BS anyway. Everyone living there is doomed anyway because of the infertility. The UK government in the film simply represents the richest slice of the country desperately trying to keep a hold of what they've got in the face of inevitible destruction. Did you not see that rich bastard in his government penthouse surrounded by pilfered works of priceless art? Somehow I think that the needs of the people are not high on their budget priority list.

It's unsettling to see how many people on here think that Nazism is essentially ok so long as there's some sort of poorly thought out justification for it.

In addition what everyone here seems to be forgetting is that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the actions of the government in the story are justified, because it's an allegory. You might as well ponder over whether Big Brother's actions are justified in 1984.

But, if there was no government who would fund attempts to cure infertility? So, it's not just the survival of a nation but, in effect, the survival of a species. It's not Nazism it's more like Fascism.
I somewhat agree about the last part though.

[Shneckie]

You people are totally forgetting that the "nation surviving" is BS anyway. Everyone living there is doomed anyway because of the infertility. The UK government in the film simply represents the richest slice of the country desperately trying to keep a hold of what they've got in the face of inevitible destruction. Did you not see that rich bastard in his government penthouse surrounded by pilfered works of priceless art? Somehow I think that the needs of the people are not high on their budget priority list.

It's unsettling to see how many people on here think that Nazism is essentially ok so long as there's some sort of poorly thought out justification for it.

In addition what everyone here seems to be forgetting is that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the actions of the government in the story are justified, because it's an allegory. You might as well ponder over whether Big Brother's actions are justified in 1984.

Nazi state or state of anarchy? I'll go for nazi state. Regardless of Britain being the last bastion of civilisation or not, your gonna have rich bastards in penthouses in any case.

[Exarch]

i didnt see nazism in 'children of men', no swastikas, no heilling here or there.

it's definitely dyspotian alright.
justified?
perhaps not.

the impression i get from all of the news and media in the west is that NOTHING can get in the way of my human rights.
whatever the heck that is

[removeduser_4536284751384]

You people are totally forgetting that the "nation surviving" is BS anyway. Everyone living there is doomed anyway because of the infertility. The UK government in the film simply represents the richest slice of the country desperately trying to keep a hold of what they've got in the face of inevitible destruction.

No they're desperately trying to find a cure for the infertility. The 'fugees talk about this in the film, when they say that the government would claim the pregnant woman is a Brit and take her away from them.

Of course that groups in the Azores they send her too is also trying to treat this infertility.

Did you not see that rich bastard in his government penthouse surrounded by pilfered works of priceless art? Somehow I think that the needs of the people are not high on their budget priority list.

I interpreted it completely the other way. Surely they'd want to save such important historical artifacts from destruction?

It's unsettling to see how many people on here think that Nazism is essentially ok so long as there's some sort of poorly thought out justification for it.

One major point of the film is to make the British government do what the Nazis did, yet give them a strong justification, so we start to question our morals.

In addition what everyone here seems to be forgetting is that it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the actions of the government in the story are justified, because it's an allegory. You might as well ponder over whether Big Brother's actions are justified in 1984.

You really don't seem to understand there are many different points made in the film. Just because there are other more important points doesn't mean smaller ones weren't intended.

The British government in that situation was portrayed that way for a reason, to make an interesting point. The director intended it. Are you claiming the film was set how it was just because they thought it would be cool?

[Soviet]

I'm not entirely sure how infertility leads to some of the greatest nations on Earth collapsing.

[Shneckie]

I'm not entirely sure how infertility leads to some of the greatest nations on Earth collapsing.

An ageing population can have disastrous effects on a nation. But imagine an ageing population for the entire world?

[Angrychris]

they tried to keep some type of sanity and order by isolation and death squads. thats why terrorism was so rampid and random. There is no tomorrow because there is no next generation. The government had nothing to lose so nothing really matters.