Ean Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 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. I appreciate that people often die and are imprisoned for free speech, but what is so important about the free speech in thisplay that makes dying for it such a good thing? I just question whether this woman just set out to cause controversy, being a sikh herself she must have known the outrage it would cause. Maybe she was looking to further her career by being associated in a controversial play. Basically i don't feel that this play was such a work of literary genius to warrant someone being seriously hurt for it (from the excerpts i've seen i wouldn't say it warranted anyone being minorly bruised for it either but thats my own humble opinion). I feel it was controversial for contraversial's sake and the writer has got exactly what she wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Static Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I've not read the play so can't comment on it's contents but i think that the memebrs of the Sikh community who used violence to get thsi play banned are wrong and are stopping free speech. The elders of the local sikh community were given copies of the script in advance of the play and were invited to see rehearsals. Until the opening night the theatre thought that they had agreement with the sikh community to show this play unhindered. Don't know if you've read the play Ean or whether you know anything about the female writer but (generalising here) plays such as this are normally written with at least some knowledge that the things that are portrayed in it do actually happen within the community at question. IMO this play should have gone ahead. The local sikh community had no right to stop it, especially with violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Just a couple of thoughts --- Satanic verses. Written by a apostate mohammedan who used as the theme the so – called Satanic Verses of the koran that were removed as they implied that there were more than just one God inexistence and so were contradictory to the assertion that ‘there is only one god’. A difficult to read let alone understand book for anyone who has not studied islam as even there is innuendo in the very names of some of the characters. Nevertheless the reaction from the mohammedans was a million miles from that of the Sikhs. The mohammedans went apexxxx, burning books, rioting, killing, and ended up placing a religious duty on any mohammedan to kill Salman Rushdie on site anywhere in the world, a sentence that is still in place to this day. What the Sikhs did was at least restrained and although there is a precious right of free speech involved there are two factors to take into account. First off the UK is most certainly not a country in which Free Speech is permitted any more than the UK is a free country. It never ewas but at one time was comparatively ‘free-er’ than just about any other country in the world. Sadly this is no longer true though the illusion lives on in the imaginations of most people. Secondly even totally free speech has its implied limits. For example to stand in front of a crowd of people in Hyde Park and shout ‘FIRE!’ is one thing but to the same in a crowded theatre is quite another matter. I suspect that to put on a play that would be highly controversial to a community in a part of the country where there is a substantial population comprise of people belonging to that community could be said to be at least ill advised if not downright confrontational. There is another factor involved though to what extent I can only guess and that relates to the friction that exists between the Sikh and the islamic communities. I fancy that all of the appeasement that is taking place towards mohammedans may well have rightly resulted in some ‘If it was about islam they wouldn’t let it be performed’ sentiment. In my opinion they would be right to feel that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 Rubbish. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nothing like a reasoned response, eh? But okay, Bill, I accept that mine was a sweeping generalisation and not particularly apposite in any case. Mea culpa. However, I can see from Ean and Rog's posts that we are all talking at cross-purposes. The fact that freedom of speech is not as widespread in the UK as we might like is neither here nor there. Nor does Ean's personal opinion of the play as not worth the trouble make any difference to the principle involved. The simple fact is that a writer has been gagged. She was not defaming any one individual or group of named individuals. She was not inciting violence or condoning violence. She was merely telling a story set in her own community to a wider community. Her own community didn't like the story. So they got it axed. Now is that right? Or wrong? And what sort of precedent does it set for the future of political writing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Wrong IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 Thanks, WilDDog. (At last! I was beginning to think I was the only person on this forum who gave a stuff about the freedom of writers.) EDITED: Oops, sorry Static, I missed your post first time round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ean Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Nor does Ean's personal opinion of the play as not worth the trouble make any difference to the principle involved. Okay fair point, but what do you say to the opinion that this play was written to prompt such a response from the sikh community. As a Sikh herself she knew what buttons to press to draw a response in such a way. And i doubt that this sets a precedent for other plays, the writer and the theatre chose not to carry on with the play. It was not banned, it was cancelled until further notice.....meaning it may go ahead elsewhere, as it should. The writer hasn't been censored, she made the decision to stop the play nobody else. There was no censorship of the play, it could be shown tomorrow if anyone so wished. So it doesn't set a precedent for political writing, people still have the limited freedom of speech that they have ever had. The only difference is that the writer of the play didn't believe her play was worth carrying on with the threat of violence and death hanging above it.... In order for evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good (wo)men to do nothing. Edit: I think Bill Posters post was a joke hollandaise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 The writer hasn't been censored, she made the decision to stop the play nobody else. There was no censorship of the play, it could be shown tomorrow if anyone so wished. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ean, Ean. Do you truly believe that massive pressure was not brought to bear on this writer and on the theatre itself? Please ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ean Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 By whom? They may have been advised by everyone not to go ahead with the play but still, nobody actually stopped her letting it go ahead. She was advised before the first night that it was very controversial and maybe it would be better not to go ahead with it but she carried on. She could have carried on the next night if she believed it was worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 By whom? They may have been advised by everyone not to go ahead with the play but still, nobody actually stopped her letting it go ahead. She was advised before the first night that it was very controversial and maybe it would be better not to go ahead with it but she carried on. She could have carried on the next night if she believed it was worth it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pffft. There's no arguing with that amount of naivety. As for your point that she wrote it deliberately to get a rise out of the Sikh community, well, obviously. That's what political writers do. They aren't writing pantos, Ean. They're writing critiques of society in order to shake things up. But they can't shake things up if only a handful of people get to SEE the play and make their own judgements, instead of reading about it in newspapers and on forums like this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 Hollandaise Tensions are running very high over here at present,what with world events. Perhaps the ladies timing was poor, i don't know. If she had met with community leaders to discuss the play,she may have seen thier view point and perhaps come to some kind of balance, to get her message/feelings across without causing offence. My fears would be, various sections of the community presuming all sikh men were the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 My fears would be, various sections of the community presuming all sikh men were the same. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Couldn't agree more. I've always found them to be good friends to have as well as being decent and honest people. There's more to this story than meets the eye I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hollandaise Posted December 22, 2004 Author Share Posted December 22, 2004 Hollandaise Tensions are running very high over here at present,what with world events. Perhaps the ladies timing was poor, i don't know. If she had met with community leaders to discuss the play,she may have seen thier view point and perhaps come to some kind of balance, to get her message/feelings across without causing offence. My fears would be, various sections of the community presuming all sikh men were the same. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Three points to answer: 1. I don't live in Holland - I presume that's what you meant by 'over here', as though I couldn't comprehend world events where I live. In actual fact, I live within 45 minutes of Birmingham Rep. The nickname refers to something quite different! 2. The theatre did consult the Sikh community long before the play opened. The Sikh leaders asked for some textual changes. They got them. They asked for the setting (ie a temple) to be changed. The theatre refused. So they asked to read out an announcement instead before the curtain went up. The theatre agreed. Then the Sikhs turned up in their hundreds and began to stone people coming out of the performance. Seems a little extreme, doesn't it? Not to mention ILLEGAL! 2. I am astonished by your fear that people might watch this play and think 'all sikh men were the same'. Utterly astonished. Be honest. How many plays, on screen and stage, depict white British men in a bad light? Do we (or indeed members of other cultures) watch them and believe that all white British men must be the same? If so, these must be the same people who send flowers and sympathy cards when soap opera characters die. Look, if you can't see a classic case of bullying when it's staring you in the face, then ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 a classic case of bullying when it's staring you in the face, then ... Agreed, it is. (But let's not fall in to that trap ourselves) I have heard that another theatre has offered to put the play on. Just goes to show, if true, that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted December 22, 2004 Share Posted December 22, 2004 I don't know, would you buy Kebabs of this man: Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.