hollandaise Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I've been utterly disgusted by this Sikh play scenario. So the bullies win ... no violent plays to be associated with their temples. But if you read the play itself - lengthy excerpts in some newspapers today - it's clear WHY they wanted shot of it. And it hasn't got much to do with religion. The play is written, firstly, by a woman. It describes the brutal raping of a girl by a matchmaker, compounded by the women in her family beating her for defiling a temple like that and then bullying her into apologising to the rapist for being a temptress. Who then promptly claims he wants to marry her - so he no longer has to 'rape' her when he wants sex. Sordid stuff indeed, and displaying a society in which women live in fear not only of men but of each others' manipulations. It doesn't show any of them in a good light, but especially not the men. It's odd though, isn't it, that when most people in this country want to change something in our society and protest about it in an intimidating manner, nine times out of ten we get ARRESTED. But we can't arrest Sikhs for intimidating and bullying the Birmingham Rep into removing the play. Oh no, that might look like racism. Better to stifle the writer and appease the protesters. What's one more writer kicked out and thrown to the wolves, after all? Shades of Roly Drower here or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I've not actually read anything on this, just heard the reports on the news. I didn't realise it was based on what you'd described above. This could prove to be a bit of a 'hot topic', it's been a while since we've had some action in this part of the forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 The play is written, firstly, by a woman. Who, according to the BBC is a Sikh, herself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 The play is written, firstly, by a woman. Who, according to the BBC is a Sikh, herself <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, absolutely. Sorry, I was assuming everyone had been following the story and knew that bit. But who better than an insider? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Agreed, but it is an important part of the equation, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 In what sense, Bill? I mean, yep, it could be more easily dismissed if written by a non-Sikh woman. Is that what you meant too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Yes, sorry if I didn't make that clear. I feel that it is somewhat ironic that it was 'one of their own' who has upset them so much. Maybe it was worse for them, because she is a woman as well? The reaction surprised me, I must admit. Sikhs don't strike me as an over aggressive group normally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 THere's nothing that rattles a man quite as much as a woman being honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ean Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I'd guess that if it were set in a Catholic or C of E church that the same kind of outrage would be there, even if it were written by a christian. It's the violence that is out of order, which is why i think the play should have been cancelled, you can't risk what will happen to the actors, directors and the audience if it went ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 I'd guess that if it were set in a Catholic or C of E church that the same kind of outrage would be there, even if it were written by a christian. It's the violence that is out of order, which is why i think the play should have been cancelled, you can't risk what will happen to the actors, directors and the audience if it went ahead. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not familiar with TS Eliot's Murder In The Cathedral then, Ean? To be honest, I can't see our local congregation getting that excited about sexual abuse set in a church or Christian setting. And it's been done often enough on tv and film. I think it's a question of their culture being unable to tolerate criticism in that sector. Think about it. Also, why should a play be cancelled because it shows violence? Half the plays ever written would be banned tomorrow if that were a criterion for banning plays. Political writers exist to explore themes which are deeply uncomfortable. Many of those themes are also in desperate need of exploration, due to precisely this sort of gagging attempt. The play should never have been cancelled. Those intimidating the actors and writer etc should have been arrested. THAT is the law and it is on the side of the theatre. Yeah, let's thump everyone who says thing we disagree with! That'll shut them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ean Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I meant it was the violence from the Sikh protesters that means the play should be cancelled. Why should the audience, actors and director have to put up with that, is the play really worth being killed for? I agree entirely that it should be allowed to go ahead unhindered but it won't because those who protested weren't arrested, meaning they are still a threat to everyone involved in the play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 I agree entirely that it should be allowed to go ahead unhindered but it won't because those who protested weren't arrested, meaning they are still a threat to everyone involved in the play. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In order for evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 21, 2004 Author Share Posted December 21, 2004 I meant it was the violence from the Sikh protesters that means the play should be cancelled. Why should the audience, actors and director have to put up with that, is the play really worth being killed for? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Also, in response to the above, Ean, the entire history of literature tells us that yes, freedom of speech is not only worth dying for but that people do often die for it, or are imprisoned for it. When you understand why that is, you will be a free man yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Shades of Roly Drower here or what? Fair points made, but surely a little more complex in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 THere's nothing that rattles a man quite as much as a woman being honest. Rubbish. I've met very few women who were anything but. I expect nothing less......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.