Borat Creator Stoned By Haredim In Jerusalem

British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen told the Cannes Film Festival that he was stoned by haredim in Jerusalem while dressed as Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion reporter character created and played by Cohen in the film Bruno.

 

Borat Creator Stoned By Haredim In Jerusalem
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen told the Cannes Film Festival that he was stoned by haredim in Jerusalem while dressed as Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion reporter character created and played by Cohen in the film Bruno.

Cohen was at the Cannes Film Festival promoting his new film, The Dictator.

Cohen said he was chased by rock throwing haredim during the filming of Bruno bruwhen he appeared on the streets dressed in a sleeveless top and hot pants along with traditional haredi apparel items.

According to the International Business Times, the Daily Mirror quoted Cohen as describing the incident this way:

"A bunch of Hasidic Jews ran after me with rocks and I ended up hiding in a bathroom store.

"Normally in dangerous situations I have a getaway car. But as I ran towards the getaway car it drove away.

"So I found myself running down the street, running for my life, and being chased by these Hasidic nutcases.

"I turned round to calm them down, and I shouted in Hebrew 'I am Jewish', which apparently is the worst thing ever you can tell Hasidic Jews.

"It was then they decided that they wanted to really kill me.”

Update 10:14 am CDT – Here's a video that may show part of the incident [Hat Tip: MoishieCohen]:

 

Comments

[MoishieCohen]

I find him funny to watch (although Bruno was very lame compared to Borat) but I do think he was wrong here.

It's akin to walking around in Vatican City in a sexy nun costume. Not at all appropriate - actually, just provocatory.

[MoishieCohen]

Watch it here.

Still makes me smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCsIrYNp1gg

[seymour]

Watch it here.

Still makes me smile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCsIrYNp1gg

Posted by: MoishieCohen | May 18, 2012 at 07:53 AM

made my day

maybe they where going to ask him out?

[Eli, what me messiah?]

ah... he's pointedly hilarious even in his description of their awful reaction. "and I shouted in Hebrew 'I am Jewish', which apparently is the worst thing ever you can tell Hasidic Jews."

Moishe, "sexy nun costume" is an oxymoron, and actually a pretty funny one (made me chuckle).... I dare you to walk around Vatican City in one and see if you provoke a violent reaction. Even the transvestites manning the adjacent streets don't get a response of any kind.

[Logic]

Looked at the video. I am not surprised by the reaction. He was right by the walled city dressed to insult the chassidim. What a jerk. Imagine dressing in blackface and walking down the streets of harlem - would you be surprised if you would be chassed?

[Rebecca]

It is funny. I get where they would be offended, but I'm still giggling. Sadly, the devout religious seldom have a sense of humor, unlike HaShem - He sits in the heavens and laughs! :)

[Garnel Ironheart]

Cohen is used to offending people and getting away with it. The idea that people would be insulted and actually act out violently on that anger seems to have taken him completely by surprise.
Secondly, do we have any actual evidence this occurred other than from him?
If it really did I have about as much sympathy for him as for the guy who told me "Yeah, I poked the wasps' nest with a stick but I didn't think they'd all come out and sting me!"

[seymour]

Looked at the video. I am not surprised by the reaction. He was right by the walled city dressed to insult the chassidim. What a jerk. Imagine dressing in blackface and walking down the streets of harlem - would you be surprised if you would be chassed?

Posted by: Logic | May 18, 2012 at 08:11 AM

not the same thing

It really is like the example of the sexy nun.

the black face is bringing up a dark time in American history
segregation

[rebeljew]

This is obviously staged. But it plausibly could have happened. That is what makes it so funny.

[Yosef ben Matitya]

this guy is a repugnant creep.
http://www.haaretz.com/culture/arts-leisure/sacha-baron-cohen-s-the-dictator-commits-crimes-against-comedy.premium-1.431067

[Mike]

Sacha Baron Cohen's movies are actually intended to expose the severe antisemitism/homophobia which is very prevalent in America. He is a Jew himself, and his movies happen to be very funny. Sure, they will definetly offend some, but some of you make it sound like their attempt to stone him was justified. Personally, I think that if you can't laugh at yourself or some of the stranger things in your religion, you aren't really all that faithful on the inside. At least he didn't go as Borat and speak openly against Jews. Loosen up, will you?

[MoishieCohen]

Also brings back memories of John McClane sweating away in Die Hard 3

[Logic]

not the same thing

Posted by: seymour | May 18, 2012 at 08:19 AM

Beg to differ. Both are offensive - simple as that. We are talking about visceral reactions, not an analysts of the origins of the offense.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

"We are talking about visceral reactions, not an analysts of the origins of the offense."

Posted by: Logic | May 18, 2012 at 09:15 AM

Can someone translate this for me?

[something 's not right]

... ' as i ran towards the getaway car , it drove away ' ......

who's gonna believe that ?

a getaway car is supposed to wait for you to protect you . that's why you pay a getaway car .

so, when the driver saw sasha ,he drove away instead of letting him into the car .

what ? the driver did not recognize sasha? bizarre story .

i will sue the israeli security company .

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

The video looks staged.

[Yochanan Lavie]

It's ironic because SBC himself is fairly observant.

[Logic]

Can someone translate this for me?

Posted by: Eli, what me messiah? | May 18, 2012 at 09:47 AM

What is at play is the basic principle that doing something offensive among people who find it offensive will result in getting the boot.

So a woman walking into shul on yom kippur night during kol nidrei topless will result in her getting the boot.

A whiteman with blackface entering a church in harlem during Christmas eve service will result in him getting the boot.

The relevance of blackface or topless and the level of chuptzah is not at play here it is the simple observation that certain actions performed in a certain time and place will get you into big trouble!

[Dovid]

Logic: "Both are offensive - simple as that. We are talking about visceral reactions, not an analysts of the origins of the offense."

Yes, so he would be chased, that's predictable. But the origins of the offense are relevant to everything else (like whether it's funny and whether he's a jerk).

Your comparison with blackface brings along bunch of additional baggage, which is why it's not the best comparison.

[Dovit]

What some of you are implying is that being offended gives people the right to beat or even kill someone. Very dangerous attitude.

[Shmarya]

What is at play is the basic principle that doing something offensive among people who find it offensive will result in getting the boot.

So a woman walking into shul on yom kippur night during kol nidrei topless will result in her getting the boot.

A whiteman with blackface entering a church in harlem during Christmas eve service will result in him getting the boot.

The relevance of blackface or topless and the level of chuptzah is not at play here it is the simple observation that certain actions performed in a certain time and place will get you into big trouble!

Posted by: Logic | May 18, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Please.

Cohen was on a PUBLIC STREET and he had every right to dress the way he did. Haredim had NO right to chase him or bar him from walking on those streets, let alone stone him.

That is a far different situation than someone dressing inappropriately or in a racially provocative manner and attempting to enter a private building.

I guess the haredi troll school you went to didn't actually impart to you any logic, let alone any common sense or intellectual honesty.

[jancsipista]

I wish there would be more video of him in mea shearim the video is very short ,this part to is extreemly funny everytime i see it i laugh especially when those mindless automatons chas him hillarious.

[Proton Soup]

The video looks staged.

Posted by: WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar | May 18, 2012 at 10:03 AM

yeah, that's his schtick. he provokes everyone. to get it on camera for people to laugh at.

[ca]

Shmarya, you believe that you could walk peacefully down the street in Harlem, little Italy or any other ethnic neighborhood in a manner that you intend and know to be extremely offensive and provocative? Not that they have a right to stone him. Try walking into Gaza in a prov active manner. This was either staged or the expected result was garnered. How about into an Amish village and with kids around? Also in his vids you don't necessarily see what else he may have done to provoke. He could rubbed against people or tried to hug people etc.

[ca]

He was provoking the people. Come on. He should have been chased out.

[jancsipista]

ca-provoking someone does not give them the license to phiscally attack someone.

[Dovid]

Yes he has the right to do it. No, people don't have the right to attack him.

Could it have been predicted that people would be offended and try to attack him? Of course. That's the only claim Logic claims to be making.

But the fact that this could be accurately predicted changes nothing about his rights, his attackers' lack of rights, the underlying level of offensivess nor anything else.

Personally, I think his getup is hilarious. And obviously he was deliberately trying to offend, no question about that.

[ML]

The right to be offended does not give a person the right to react violently.

The inability to understand this is unbelievable to me.

So, be offended (or not) all you want. It's free. But your reactions are not all justified.

[ca]

Posted by: jancsipista | May 18, 2012 at 01:16 PM

I agree with you, I said that in my comment.

I'm just saying that some of Logic's first point above has some merit. The reaction arguably would not be unique to Charadim as to other people similarly provoked. We also don't see everything he did. If he was touching people or perceived as a threat .... which seems likely the case >>>

Gotta run. have a nice weekend

[Logic]

Please.

Cohen was on a PUBLIC STREET and he had every right to dress the way he did. Haredim had NO right to chase him or bar him from walking on those streets, let alone stone him.

Ok, lets say Sharpton passes away and there is a funeral procession down 125th St and some dumb white boy puts on blackface and does a rendition of "Mammy" in the middle of the street in the middle of the crowd.

(1) How many broken bones will he walk away with. and
(2) Will the police do a rigorous investigation to hunt down and arrest the people involved in the presumed beating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIaj7FNHnjQ&feature=related

[jancsipista]

Logic-You are tottaly illogical with youre hypothetical scenario.

[SkepticalYid]

Posted by: Logic | May 18, 2012 at 02:02 PM

You mean like the Satmar in WIllie used to do in the Chaptzem days they love to remember?

[Apostate]

I'm sure the hasids had fun playing along with the joke, and a good time was had by all.

[Zionist Goy]

Bravo to the charedim on this one. Secularization shouldn't go against nature and thousands of years of secularization for the sake of bizarre, in your face right to inclusion. I recall Eretz Yisrael as being the vicinity of Sodom and Gemorrah, or like so much Torah, is that simply regarded as myth today? This type also does alot for the growth of jewish population there which is so desperately needed to keep pace w/ the Arab birthrate, doesn't it? Lie low, get back in the closet and thank Hashem for His mercy and that of your fellow citizens. Inclusivity my touchas........

[MoishieCohen]

Please.

Cohen was on a PUBLIC STREET and he had every right to dress the way he did. Haredim had NO right to chase him or bar him from walking on those streets, let alone stone him.

Ok, lets say Sharpton passes away and there is a funeral procession down 125th St and some dumb white boy puts on blackface and does a rendition of "Mammy" in the middle of the street in the middle of the crowd.

(1) How many broken bones will he walk away with. and
(2) Will the police do a rigorous investigation to hunt down and arrest the people involved in the presumed beating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIaj7FNHnjQ&feature=related

Posted by: Logic | May 18, 2012 at 02:02 PM

Logic-You are tottaly illogical with youre hypothetical scenario.

Posted by: jancsipista | May 18, 2012 at 04:07 PM

Actually, jancsi, he's not. He's perfectly applying Shmarya's logic but in differently framed scenario (i.e. blacks instead of Haredim) to prove that no, SBC did not have 'every right' to do what he did.

And Shmarya, you write 'Haredim...had no right to stone him'

Please show us in the video the moment he gets stoned.

[MoishieCohen]

ca-provoking someone does not give them the license to phiscally attack someone.

Posted by: jancsipista | May 18, 2012 at 01:16 PM

(1) No, but it does mean he can't act surprised when it happens

(2) As in my previous post, kindly clarify at which point SBC was 'phiscally' attacked? I see him being chased.

[MoishieCohen]

Two points to suggest it was a setup:

1. Why is the Charedi walking around in his tallis (but none of the other Charedim are)?

2. Why are the 2 guys in a baseball cap and kipa seruga chasing him? They seem unlikely Kano'im?..

[Yoel Mechanic]

There is a puzzling English language usage issue. When someone uses the word stone, as a verb, the usage uncommon, and generally is used in a biblical context. If someone throws a rock or rocks, the best way to express is to say "threw rocks". I wonder if the usage of "stoning" when seen in the context of religious Jews is to hint at the form of capital punishment known as skilah. Is there some kind of hinting or hidden political message in saying "Cohen was stoned" as opposed to the more clear cut "Cohen had rocks thrown at him"? Is the point to hint that being "stoned" implies intent to execute, whereas "throwing rocks" leaves the intent of the rock throwing crowd to be decided by facts on the ground? We must also take into account that according to Jewish records, in the Mishnah and Gemorrad, Skilah, is described to be a form of execution quite different from lapidation, or the popular misconception hinted at in literature such as the New Testament, or the fictional short story "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson. In this cultural backdrop, one can see that vague terms like "stoning" or "was stoned" could be used to manipulate the reader to form unconscious associations with scary forms of execution, or at least different forms of execution even more scary than skilah itself. Of course, all forms of execution are scary in their own way, some scarier than others, but all scary for obvious reasons. Are we to assume that a rock throwing mob are to be associated with the biblical style of execution?

[Yaakov]

Situations like this one have a bi-lateral structure.

Each party is 100% responsible for their own behavior, it is not a zero sum game. It was Cohen's intention to provoke, making his part in this simpler than usual. He hoped to see outrageous behavior in response to his own outrageous behavior, as he makes clear in the article:

Normally in dangerous situations I have a getaway car. But as I ran towards the getaway car it drove away.

Clearly he understood what might result from his actions. He was trolling these people, and intended to provoke.

On the other hand, the people who did chase him, and possibly threw stones at him, are also completely responsible for what they did. While they were provoked, intentionally, and expertly; the right thing to do would have been to ignore Cohen.

This would be right both ethically and functionally. It would have disproven his thesis that these people were animal like and could be provoked in a Pavlovian fashion to violence, and it would have deprived him of the reward he sought. Of course, no thought was given to this, and this does demonstrate something about the (alleged) assaulters.

On balance, in a case like this, I would apply midah k'neged midah (measure against measure; proportionality) when judging the event. Here, Cohen absolutely intended to provoke and anticipated "danger". Clearly he had the idea he could cause a violent reaction. Ignoring the significance of being able to provoke such a reaction in this part of the analysis, we see that Cohen did something dangerous for his own gain and so should own the outcome of it.

However, on the other side, the people who chased him have their own responsibility for their actions. While normally to chase someone down the street in a threatening way would be assault and an affront to the public peace, here we have a person intentionally provoking. Not, as in the case of a women with pants on, or elbows showing, normative behavior but intentionally outrageous behavior. So, chasing Cohen away seems, to me, to be proportional to his own behavior. Though, to be very clear, I do not support it and think ignoring him would have been the very best course of action.

If there was stone throwing then we've reached a level of disproportional reaction. Assault with a deadly weapon is well beyond a reasonable reaction, it is criminal. If people did this, then they have committed a clear criminal act and have their own liability for it. Cohen cannot be blamed for it.

I don't like Cohen. I don't like his humor and never had. I think it is low, exploitive, and ugly. I know many people, some who I respect a great deal who do find him funny, but I cannot. But, if he did have rocks hurled at him, his own stupidity did reveal the even greater stupidity of the people he was targeting. As it stands, the video does not show this, and I am not willing to take his word for it, even if I do believe it is far from impossible that it is true.

[Yaakov]

Gah. Early morning eyes, typos. Bleh. Only one rises to the level of "what the heck did you mean?"…

erratum:

Read:

Not, as in the case of a women with pants on, or elbows showing, normative behavior but intentionally outrageous behavior.

As:

Far different from the case of a women with pants on, or elbows showing, not normative behavior but intentionally outrageous behavior.

Sorry.

[Skeptical]

Yaakov - "Midah k'neged midah" would have been name calling on the part of the residents; possibly someone throwing a sheet over him. However, throwing stones can actually kill, even by accident, if done with sufficient force. There is no justification for them using what amounts to possibly deadly force in this instance. One of the things that haunts me is the total lack of proportion inherent in this community. They would have had the pretty much the same reaction against a little girl in shorts. Their kids would have demonstrated almost as much physical violence against MO handicapped kids using a wheelchair on Shabbat. Yet, known child rapists are allowed to walk free and unencumbered in that community!

[Yaakov]

Skeptical:

I know my posts are prolix but if you don't read them through you will miss key points. Your comment is not relevant to what I wrote.

Among other things, I said:

If there was stone throwing then we've reached a level of disproportional reaction. Assault with a deadly weapon is well beyond a reasonable reaction, it is criminal. If people did this, then they have committed a clear criminal act and have their own liability for it. Cohen cannot be blamed for it.

(emphasis also in the original post)

I also said that chasing him was marginal but not excessive to the point of requiring sanction. I agree with you, if they threw stones, they committed a dangerous criminal act for which Cohen's genuine provocation is not a justification.

[MoishieCohen]

However, throwing stones can actually kill, even by accident, if done with sufficient force. There is no justification for them using what amounts to possibly deadly force in this instance. One of the things that haunts me is the total lack of proportion inherent in this community....

Posted by: Skeptical | May 20, 2012 at 01:47 PM

As I commented above, (I was the one who posted the link to the video and) I fail to see any stone throwing in the video.

SBC may have been exaggerating, or using it to drum up interest, but as of yet, there is no visual evidence of this stone throwing. So it is unwise, make that foolish/dishonest, to adopt a critical attitude to something that may not have even happened

[MoishieCohen]

I watched it again to look for the stone throwing, and I couldn't help but laugh again. The look on some of the Haredim's faces is priceless....so awkward

[MoishieCohen]

I feel a bit bad for bringing this up, without a true understanding of the context, but check out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83t_s7Y3EH4&feature=related

I think I understand why the Yerushalmim don't want to be video'd.

I cannot understand why the Yerushalmi guy shoves the photographer in the chest. What for?

An afterthought - maybe they were Christian missionaries? Still doesn't condone the violence...

[Another Halocene Human]

Stoned? That's nothing. If that douchebag shows his face in the US without his fawning media buddies around, he's at risk of being pelted with rotten vegetables.

His movie got a "C" rating from first-weekend viewers and US and Canadian ticket sales were disappointing. Baron-Cohen, 1983 called and it wants its offensive gay stereotype komedy tropes back.

[dovid e.]

Satire is one thing... purposely desecrating the holiest city on earth, he deserved what he got.