Guest lightnix Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 "A London theatre is considering whether to stage the play which caused a storm of protests from Birmingham's Sikh community.The Royal Court Theatre... said it would look at the play "Behzti", written by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti."read more... This may prove to be a touchy subject and I don't want to start a big debate on religion and politics, OK? I just wondered what people's feelings were on this. We live in a "free" society and enjoy freedom of speech (barring slander, libel, etc.) I want the right to decide for myself what is offensive and generally take the Voltarian view: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But do we have the right to do things which we know will cause offense, not just to one or two people, but a considerable number? I may call for the right to be offended, but should I call for the right to be offensive, too? Were the Birmingham protests an example of mob rule or a justifiable expression of outrage (not that violence is the solution, mind you). The Royal Court say they are only looking at the script at the moment. Are they making a genuine stand for artistic freedom or doing something sensationalist to put bums on seats. Will they go ahead with it or is it all just a publicity stunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jexjexjex Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Hmmm... difficult one. Would there have been as much of an outcry, with associated protests, if the play had been staged in an area that didn't have such a concentrated ethnic population? Or as hinted at, was that the whole idea? Either way, if the everything that was reported is "genuine", surely censorship by mob-rule is a very dangerous path to walk down, and does this now mean that any other piece of art/theatre/film that causes offence to someone who shouts loudly, will be pulled, re-examined and made politically correct? No doubt, this one will rumble on for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Either way, if the everything that was reported is "genuine", surely censorship by mob-rule is a very dangerous path to walk down, and does this now mean that any other piece of art/theatre/film that causes offence to someone who shouts loudly, will be pulled, re-examined and made politically correct?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes; I think that is just where we are heading. Salman Rushdi springs to mind. :( but not so far... Could we go as far as legislation getting passed by our duly elected leaders only to be blocked by braying Hooray Henrys and their packs of dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 Surely the point of good theatre is that it's provocative in one way or another? The question is, where do you draw the line? Where's the boundary between provocative and offensive? If I worked at the Royal Court or Birmingham Rep, then I think I might perhaps have more of a clear-cut opinion on this particular issue - would I choose to fight my way through a lynch-mob outside stage door every evening, risking verbal and physical abuse from the angry mob forming some sort of 'picket' outside, just so that I could board-op a performance? Is any job worth that sort of risk and aggravation? I don't think so .... and I'm sure that, if plans to stage this piece do go ahead, BECTU will have something to say about their members being expected to put up with this kind of thing in the course of doing their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stig Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I think that the right to write what you want and say what you want is a lot more important than the right not to be offended. It has always been the things that are controversial and had people up in arms that have changed the way things are. Many years ago women were not allowed on stage and when one did it caused an outcry. People boycotted the theatre and the fabric of society was at stake, but look at it now. If you did censor plays, tv shows, films etc so that they wouldn’t offend anyone who’s opinion are we going to take. What to one person is offensive to another is not, so to find a medium were no one is offended is going to be a difficult if not impossible task to achieve. The only way to be sure that people aren’t offended is to let them know that they might be offended, and if they think they may be offended then don’t go and see it. Its like the people who complain about what is on TV claiming that who ever made the program “brought it into their front roomâ€! They are the ones that own the TV, they are the ones with the controls to the channels and if you find it offensive turn it off or change channel. The same with a theatre show or film at the cinema if you don’t like it or think you may be offended don’t go and see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightnix Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 The editorial in today's Evening Standard makes a comparison, which helped put it in perspective for me. Behzti (which translates as "dishonour") contains scenes of a Sikh holy man commiting acts of rape and depravity in a temple. A Christian "equivalent" might be to have scenes of priests sodomising choirboys over the altar of a church. Even as a non-churchgoer, I can easily understand how many people, including members of my family, would be horribly offended by such scenes and even I would question their artistic merit. I'm not in favour of censorship and neither do I support mob violence, but surely as a Sikh herself, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatt must have had some idea as to the strength of feeling her play might arouse. Freedom of speech is all very well, but should it mean freedom from consequences? What about the virtues of tact and diplomacy? There's more than one way of getting your message across. You might entertain the view that Millwall FC are crap (and they know they are), BUT... would you go shouting about it in certain South-East London pubs, mindful of the offence it would cause and the consequences arising from demonstrating your right to Free Speech in such a manner? No? Didn't think so. Back in 1977, the Gay Times was successfully prosecuted for Blasphemy, on account of a poem it had published the previous year, The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name by James Kirkup (no relation, I'm sure). The poem recounted the homoerotic fantasy of a gay Roman soldier, as he removed Christ's body from the cross. The magazine was fined £1,000 with £20,000 costs, the editor received a £500 fine and nine months in jail. According to this webpage, "The definition of blasphemy takes into account whether the publication, about God or Christ or the Christian religion is so scurrilous or abusive or offensive as would, if published, tend to vilify the Christian religion and could lead to a breach of the peace." I mention this because AFAIK the Blasphemy laws only extend to the Christian religion. Maybe if they covered others, this case would be more clearly cut. Some further perspectives...Radio Netherlands (Holland)The Herald (Scotland)New Kerala (India)The Times (England)The Times (letters)Gulf Daily News (Bahrain)Writers Guild (UK) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 What worries me about this is that I wonder how many of the 'protesters' had actually seen the play? If they had, then they are entitled to form an opinion and to express that same opinion by any lawful means. If they hadn't then it worries me when large groups of people are being manipulated for someone else's ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
la grande homme Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Theatre has ever been a medium for expression and the challenging of boundaries. In England we can fall into a trap of thikng that Chittys and Poppins and Producers (tho think how that would have been received in 1942... :) ) are the be all and end all (espescially when you work in the West End and see it everywhere) and whilst there is still good theatre out there asking questions and holding up the mirror to society it doesn't always get the recognition it deserves. I'm sure if you had asked Athol Fugard in apartheid ridden South Africa whether he thought it was a good idea to put on a play that asked questions that many didn't want asked and caused a sensation amongst the populace his answer would have been short and affirmative... and as Stig points out you can always not go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solstace Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 I'm with Stig on this one. There's similar and worse stuff on the 'net, in video stores, gaming stores, TV, even the newspapers. At the end of the day, no matter what your own belief, people don't have to watch/read/play this stuff. Society will buy anything that is currently a "hot topic" - that's the way it's always been. As a noise-boy, I'm not sure I'd want to do sound for such a job in the conditions described by Gareth - at least, not without a good pay deal!! I think the freedom of expression is important - but it has to be handled in an appropriate way. As an example - If I were to express my discontent at a situation with a few choice words, I'd be careful to make sure there's no relative, priest, or cleric in the way to cop the full flow... that's a basic thing I hope we all have in us, to some extent? On a wider level, I sometimes wonder if society needs to wake up to the fact that there are some serious issues going on in the world around us, that aren't going to go away. It is perhaps un-ethical to make money from them, but they need dealing with all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Need Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 As a boy I used to get confused by what my Father said on many occasions - "This Country is going to the Dogs". By all accounts, this Country has been heading that way during every generation since records began. It may have been jazz, or the increase in rents for farmers or tenants; the power of the unions in the 80's, Mrs Thatcher, Mr Blair......... Political Correctness, Poll Tax.. whatever reason. The protests in Birmingham, and the immediate cessation of performances at the Rep., do prove one thing however: If one belongs to a minority one can be heard. If the minority is a large number of fox hunters, land-owners, blacksmiths etc. - forget it. If you belong to a group of pensioners complaining about the level of council tax - Forget it. Political correctness rules yes? It is a little ironic that The City of Birmingham cancelled "Christmas" and re-named it "Winterval" a while ago; Nativity plays in schools called off due to not wanting to upset other religious groups and yet talk to most Muslim's, Pagan's, Jew's, Hindu's or Sikh's and they will agree this is as barmy an idea as people recycling their Christmas cards. "The change is being made because city council officials hope to create a more multi-cultural atmosphere in keeping with the city's mix of ethnic groups." Political correctness rules yes? The playwright has received death threats and does not wish to see the play staged elsewhere. However, I am of the view that people who use violence to silence free speech should be vigorously opposed and challenged. We live in a society where we have a right to protest, but not use violence to achieve our aims. We must oppse mob rule? Music, theatre, art all should be thought provoking or else it is merely something to pass the time just ask Ravel or Peter Brooke or Brecht or Strinberg or Edward Bond or Harold Pinter.........!? As I am now the same age my Father was when he mentioned "dogs", "country" and "going to "................. I have to say, I now understand where he was coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I recall a radio 4 programme some time ago in which a journalist revisited the area he grew up in. He travelled aroud the town in a car with one of his former school friends. This individual was muslim and found it offensive that women were walkingaround in short skirts and low-cut tops. If we were to set our acceptable standards such that the individual above was not offended, women would all wear burkahs, not drive, not work and definately not appear on stage. I think that there are a few peiple out there that would be offended by such capitulation! All that the pulling of "Behzti" has done is send the message that violence gets what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeR Posted January 1, 2005 Share Posted January 1, 2005 Freedom of speech means the right to express oneself openly & without fear of censure, by definition this means that some may be offended by anothers expression. To take any other view is to defeat the very freedom of speech that taking any view allows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightnix Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 Freedom of speech means the right to express oneself openly & without fear of censure, by definition this means that some may be offended by anothers expression. To take any other view is to defeat the very freedom of speech that taking any view allows.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Fair enough, but imagine for a moment... ...you take your family to a restaurant one night (including your children and mother-in-law). As you sit down, you notice me at a nearby table with some old roadie mates. The evening begins quietly enough, but after a while the conversation from our table starts to get louder. A while later it gets louder still, as the subject gets on to sex and tales of just how far groupies will go to get a backstage pass. Your mother-in-law starts to emit a low growl and your kids ask some awkward questions. What do you do? After all, we have the right to Freedom of Speech and if you don't like it there are always other tables further away, or even other restaurants you can go to. Anyway, we were here first. Freedom of Speech, fine. Unrestricted Freedom of Speech? Hmmm... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I guess the test to apply (and also to your Springer post) is 'did you choose to be subjected to whatever it is that annoys you'. If you go to the cinema/go to the theatre/watch tv, then you have made a positive choice; you have opted-in to the event. If you are sitting in a restaurant and are subjected to other people's views then you didn't choose. A restaurant is not somewhere you normally go to be insulted or upset. So the boundaries of your 'freedom of expression' must depend on where you express it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the kid Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I've forgotten was it written by a Sikh and are they orthodox Sikh? I think that if it was written by a Sikh for a Sikh audience in a Sikh country I'm sure that they would see the black comedy. If we were in a Sikh country and some one wrote a play on the christian/english way of life and it was some how offensive then I'm sure that we would have the same reaction. We all have our freedom of speech but when its used to protest against something unseen then it becomes a group of angry people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.