Stephen,
A short break before the party season resumes but one or two finer
points. I agree there is a conundrum at the heart of 'free-speech' -
it has to allow the BNP to spout their vile message etc. but they
cannot promote hatred. We cannot have Freedom with a capital
F when a certain element of that freedom actually threatens 'little'
freedom itself. Oh you know the point I'm making - I needn't demonstrate a
conundrum or paradox that we are all aware of.
However one or two of your comments disturbed me.
Your use of the phrases 'knee-jerk' and 'jump to the defence of
freedom' - how so? What makes you think that 'our' response is not
considered? Our jumping to the defence of freedom has taken quite a
few hundred years in the making. A sobering and grim fact: Queen
Victoria witnessed the burning of a witch in Scotland and Q.V. laughed to
see such fun! That happened in the age of our (my)
grandparents. Our 'freedom' is barely out of nappies we need to
protect and nurture it not break its legs before it has begun to walk
properly. I feel it is dangerously under threat at the moment.
Regarding the Birmingham Rep there are a few points that
need to be annotated.
One: the playwright herself was Sikh therefore
any racist accusations are a bit off the mark. Not an
impossible view I admit but in this case I just don't think that the
main protesters about the violent protesters i.e, the great and good of
British theatre plus assorted writers and intellectuals are a bunch of
closet racists.
Two: the Rep bent over backwards trying to
appease the protesters. They had meetings spanning weeks. The fabled
abuse does not take place upon the altar (so to speak) but in an office.
This is not schlock Hammer Horror - now there's a thought - how many Hammer
Horror films should we kiss bye-bye too! Nor is it incitement to race or
religious hatred. It is, reportedly, a play very sympathetic to Sikhism.
Three: A synopsis and notes were
giving to attending audiences. They could leave before the
start if they found it was going to offend them. The theatre, in
their eagerness to appease the protesters, finally suggested that the play not
be performed but simply read out loud so that the dissenters could come along
and make up their minds if it was blasphemous. The protests got violent.
One wonders how many of those protesting had actually seen the play and
were merely performing a knee-jerk reaction about something they hadn't
even seen.
Four: Probably my most important point
Stephen is that absolutely no one to my knowledge has said that the Sikh
community couldn't protest or were wrong for protesting. It is their
right. It is not their right however to be violent and issue death threats
and violence and exercise mob-rule. That is quite simply against the law of this
land. Under no circumstance should one accept death-threats and violence as a
legitimate form of protest. And of course many of the Sikh's have
condemned this threat but not so enthusiastically that the playwright can come
out of hiding. OUT OF HIDING. That phrase, Stephen, terrifies
me and I'm not being dramatic. Are we to bring back the equivalent of
priest holes to hide our writers in?
Five: Our 'knee-jerk' reaction is aimed
equally at our politicians acceptance of this episode and the closure of
the play. It is I think a very sad time for Britain as this will not be
the last of such mob-induced censorship. And with the government on their side
it is also a scary day for this country. When a government endorses
the breaking of the law's of the land because it is hiding under the
flag of religion then I'm extremely worried by that. We all should be. It
is not an 'atheist's problem because it can also set one religion up
against another. Let's go to the extreme - what about a religion that
doesn't agree with theatre full stop. Do we allow it to close down all our
theatres? Hyperbolic maybe but Cromwell did it. History does repeat
itself - numbingly so. These things have to be nipped in the bud because
once you let one thing go - well how do you stop the next?
So although I appreciate what you are saying Stephen I
feel I must return your note of caution and urge you to panic a bit
more!
I'm afraid this is as considered as I can be at the
moment as I'm in the middle of the midwinter festivities which seem to bring
with it an awful amount of washing-up!! Oh hang on - Alan's just done
it. I'm off for a drink then.
Cheers one and all,
All the best,
Geraldine
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:51
PM
Subject: theatre protests
|
Geraldine and David, regarding the theatre
protest and the threats to the author, it of course reminds one of the
Rushdie affair. Of course it is to do with gender, but that’s from our
point of view –what about those who believe and accept that awful status
quo? I remember being in deep discussion with those who defended the
action against Rushdie –they had a point, but of course that goes
against the grain. After the death of the Dutch film director there was
a lot of outpouring and sympathy for him and protests against the Muslim
community. I believe that his film, and the play are both deliberately
provocative, and despite the Arts Council noble defence regarding
pluralism and so on, one has to ask whether the showing or performance
constitutes an incitement towards racial hatred? Certainly the film
director who had close ties to the assassinated neo-fascist politician
was doing a “Michael Moore” –aiming at sensationalism and usage of nudity. In Britain there were strict
anti-blasphemy laws in place for centuries, and for thousands of years
non-Christians and heretics were killed –and attacked without any
support from the legislation. Now that we so happen to be mostly
atheists and church attendance is at an all time low, we do not care one
bit about the beliefs of others –we cannot get beyond calling them
sexist, child abusers and so forth. However, millions, if not billions
of the world’s citizens are religious, and may would defend their
beliefs with their lives –given this strength of feeling, one should
think more about what we allow to be broadcast or performed – allow it,
but give some kind of government health warning- not censorship, but a
sign that the nation is a mature nation able to allow something to be
performed, but at the same time respect and support the beliefs and
politics of a large minority. I often feel that the jump to the defence
of freedom of speech/expression
does sometime camouflage the racist motivation behind it –I am
sure the great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill would have agreed
on this point with regard to the
nature of harm. So just a word of caution regarding the knee-jerk
reaction to such protests. I know
in this country the nationalist party, the Danish folk party made great
capital out of the Dutch director’s death –a lot of criticism was
directed against the Danish muslim community,because strangely they did
not send any condolences. Another point. Sometimes we get trapped in the
cocktail party of postcolonialism and see the developing world through
very bias sun-glasses –a Syrian friend of mine who was in television and
reporter during the Lebanon war – once told me about how a Syrian writer
completely unknown in Syria was seen as representative about Syria
because she had written about female circumcision –what he asked me
about all those other writers –the ones who were popular –even the
dissident writers in Syria? Oh they were not interesting, because blah
blah –and because they did not write in English. Go figure.
Stephen Philip Pain, MA,MPhil,
www.biorhetorics.1go.dk
kongensgade 15 1-sal,
5000 Odense
C.
Denmark.
Tel: +45 66 12 06
22
|
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on
the Web!