Previous | Memories | Tell Someone | Next
 
whiskyinmind
whiskyinmind
21 December 2004 @ 09:27 am
To Censor or not to Censor?  

Those of you in the UK will no doubt have heard of the uproar surrounding the play "Behtzi - Dishonour" which was being staged by the Birmingham Rep. The play was written by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, herself a Sikh woman, and has caused a huge amount of upset in portions of the Sikh community because the play includes scenes of rape and murder within a gurdwara (Sikh temple).

This has been declared as offensive to the Sikh religion and campaign groups were mounted to have it removed from the theatre's schedule. On Saturday the campaign turned to violence and the theatre was attacked - stones were thrown through the windows and staff were physically and verbally threatened.

Talks were in place all day yesterday to try to reach a compromise and by yesterday evening the Birmingham Rep had decided to cancel the play because the staff of the theatre's safety was in question. This morning, the Birmingham Theatre Company has announced it intends to show the play. I believe they are right next door to the Birmingham Rep but I'm not sure.

Yesterday the news channels spent a lot of time on this story, talking to representatives of all the major parties involved. A couple of things struck me as questionable about it, and they were all voiced by the Sikh campaign groups.

The first: an older man made the comment (and I'm paraphrasing because I didn't think to write this down at the time) that 'if scenes like this were being shown as being in a Christian church it would be banned automatically.'

Uh, no. "Murder in the Cathedral" comes to my mind instantly and I’m sure there are lots of other examples.

I haven't seen "Behtzi", chances are fairly good I won't get to see it for a while if ever, but it seems that the biggest issue is the fact that the scenes take place within the temple rather than that the scenes take place at all.

The second point is this, another older man said he believed the writer should be able to write what she wanted, just not this.

Huh?

Basically he is saying that she can write whatever she wants so long as it falls under his approval. Again I say, huh?

I don't agree with censorship. I am a firm believer in freedom of expression, we live in a democracy, part of that is the right to make a stand, to say what we want without fear of persecution. However there is also the question of religious tolerance and freedom from harassment.

So I wondered, what do you guys think of this? Should the play be cancelled? Should the writer (and director and performers) be able to show whatever they want on stage no matter who it offends? (Not just this play, but all works that are likely to insult a sector of society?) Has PC gone too far?

Thoughts? Comments?

 
16 comments | Leave a comment
 
( Post a new comment )
[identity profile] rileysaplank.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 09:48 am (UTC)
My initial reaction is that you shouldn't censor. Everybody should have the opportunity to express their ideas.

But then I ask myself, why did Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti write this play. She must have realised that there was the possibility of this happening. If it was to try and open up debate about the Sikh religion, then brilliant, good on her. But if it was just to cause outrage and upset, then that's a different story.

But no matter the intention of the play, that doesn't excuse anybody attacking the staff of the theatre where the play is being staged. People do have the right to work in safety without fear of being attacked.

If the Sikh community (and is it truly the Sikh community or just a hardcore sector of it?) is truly upset about the play, then their anger should be directed at the playwright, not the players.

This is, of course, just my opinion.

Andy
[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 10:08 am (UTC)
I can't speak for the writer, obviously - since I'm not her. It doesn't seem that the play was intended to stir up religousy zealoutry though, it looks as though this is a play which is intended to showcase the facts of life as they relate to these charactes. There's a snippet of the play on the Guardian's website along with a discussion of what prompted the violence and it seems to me that by placing the action within the temple, the writer has attempted to add to the shock factor involved in the rape. Not to cause an argument, but to stand back and say "it can happen anywhere". The article and snippet are here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1377980,00.html)

There's also an interesting commentary claiming that it's the role of theatre to challenge religion here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1377489,00.html) (also from the Guardian)
[identity profile] rileysaplank.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 10:14 am (UTC)
And it can happen anywhere. Religious buildings aren't exempt from bad things happening in them. And from what I've seen on the news thgis is what the protestors are protesting about, not the subject matter, just that it takes place within a Sikh temple.
[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 10:23 am (UTC)
That's the way it seems to me as well.

Of course the other thing to take into account is how much of the protest has been inflamed by media attention? Obviously the violent protests on Saturday were unforgivable (although not according to some of the younger people who were interviewed yesterday - and how much did comments like "we met violence with violence" make me worry about the state of the nation's youth?). I do defend the protesters right to make a stand though, how is it the quote goes? "I disagree with what you say but I would defend to the death your right to say it"? It seems to me that that should be heeded on both sides here.

But as I was saying before quotage rememberence side-tracked me, the media are showing a bias in this story. They are clearly taking the side of the theatre and the writer above the Sikh activists within the community - and from what I've read it is not the entire community who wanted the play banned, several people have spoken up that they're dismayed that it effectively has been. So how much of the continued campaign is in retaliation to the soft negativity the media is casting?
[identity profile] rileysaplank.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 10:30 am (UTC)
Hence my comment in my first reply asking whether it was the whole Sikh community that was protesting or not. Media will always show a bias, and in todays world what they're doing could inflame a volatile situation.

No matter how tolerant we think this country is (and by this country I mean the whole of the United Kingdom), there are people who will use this as an excuse to go out and attack anybody that isn't of obviously 'British' stock and use the excuse that it is in retaliation for the violence in Birmingham. And this will keep going on, becoming more about violence and counter violence, and the media will continue to stir it up because 'it makes a good story'.

Just my opinion of course, but I think that could happen very easily.
[identity profile] keith5by5.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 12:17 pm (UTC)
Not religious, so I don't care about the play. But as usual it seems the politically correct win again. If only I could afford it, I'd be in Australia by now.

This country's crap - nhs, police, politicians.

Hard to believe that the same country that produced Nelson, Churchill, Dickens, and Shakesphere could also produce Blair, Mandelson, Blunkett et al.

God I'm sick of this country.
[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on December 22nd, 2004 08:42 am (UTC)
The trouble is that every country's the same. Living as a hermit in an unspoiled wilderness would seem to be the only way to get away from the idiots, and even then they'd probably find you.
[identity profile] keith5by5.livejournal.com on December 22nd, 2004 08:44 am (UTC)
But at least in Australia I'll be warm. ANd PC doesn't appear to rule there...
[identity profile] willowmina.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 01:05 pm (UTC)
I completely disagree with the censorship. The Arts are a wonderful way to challenge people, to get them thinking, and doing it through comedy sometimes makes people think more than straight plays/films/books, etc.

For instance, a small thing, I know, but 20 years ago would a film for which the first few minutes the only word of dialogue was "Fuck!" have been accepted. 'Cause that's Four Weddings.

One thing I want to know is how many of the protesters who the play was 'offending' had actually seen the production?

Jackie
[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on December 22nd, 2004 08:46 am (UTC)
I seriously doubt many of them have seen it to be honest, it does sound like a knee-jerk reaction with the fans being flamed by the media.
[identity profile] ludditerobot.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 02:36 pm (UTC)
Democracy is not the only element here. A pure democracy can have 51% of the people decide to lynch you and that's democracy in action. There's also the concept of limited government, which is a glorious, wonderful thing which comes from the island you live on.

I can't help but think of The Bad Lieutenant, which involves the investigation of a church that was robbed and a nun that was raped. There was some controversy when it was released, and of course we are horrified when nuns are raped, but the issues of the story are rape and forgiveness. The nun forgives the rapists, the mob doesn't, and the bad lieutenant takes the sin upon himself and gets killed, which is terribly spoilery, but it isn't the plot so much as the performance that the movie relies on. It is a movie about Catholic theology, and the rape in the church is as necessary to this movie as the rampage outside the church is for Dogma. I know nothing about the play, but I'm guessing that the rape and murder in the temple are there for a reason.
[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on December 22nd, 2004 08:50 am (UTC)
The only thing I know about the play is what I was reading in the papers yesterday. It does seem from the context that placing it in the temple is integral to the plot.

The tagline for the play goes something like "In a world where honour is foremost, is there room for truth?" so it seems that it is intended to challenge the veil of secrecy surrounding Sikhism.
[identity profile] cafedemonde.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 04:42 pm (UTC)
Hey Sho,
Weird that the colonist left England for some little thing called religious freedom and made a nice little place for ourselves here...only to become just as fervored and hypocratic as everyone else.

It's like my God can beat up your God over here.

My take is that the writer can write the Pope getting it up the ass (Im Catholic) and its her right. I just dont have to see it if that bothers me.

Amazing how people think they have the right to dictate your rights for you.

How are you?

[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on December 22nd, 2004 08:55 am (UTC)
exactly - if they don't want to see it, no one is forcing them to.

They've every right to make their objections known, but to take it to the extreme of violence and threatening the staff just seems positively maedieval to me.
[identity profile] smhwpf.livejournal.com on December 21st, 2004 10:11 pm (UTC)
I agree, I am against censorship. It must be allowable to criticise religions and other beliefs. In fact, it should be allowable to be downright offensive and insulting. I mean that. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to be pointlessly offensive and insulting, but for the government to try to legislate as to what sort of criticism is legitimate and what is not is extremely dangerous. I don't think there's a right not to be offended. If someone makes a stupid and insulting attack on your beliefs, the correct response is to come up with am intelligent and preferably witty reply.

On the other hand, if people from a particular religion believe that something is offensive, unfair, hurtful, misleading, or just generally crass and unfunny, then they must equally be allowed to express that. I don't buy this line that if you get offended it means you have no sense of humour. As with anything, it is possible to critique a relgion in a way that is funny and/or insightful, or in a way that is just crass and pointless.

I don't know much about the play or its artistic merits, but either way I think the Sikh groups are acting perfectly legitimately in protesting against the theatre, organising a boycott, whatever, though not in using violence of course. It's then up to the theatre, the general public and so forth to decide how to respond to this. What would not be right would be for the government to say "This is offending someone's deeply held beliefs so it should be stopped", which thankfully I don't think is in danger of happening. The fact that the play appears to have been stopped at least partly as a result of violence though is worrying.
[identity profile] whiskyinmind.livejournal.com on December 22nd, 2004 09:01 am (UTC)
Absolutely. The protesters have every right to protest, and indeed should be encouraged so long as it is based on their beliefs and not merely bandwagon jumping (which it seemed some of the younger protesters did - a few of those interviewed were very vague about exactly why they were taking a stand). The violence and threatening behaviour that was the ultimate result is - as far as I'm concerned - unforgiveable.

It seems more a case of mob rule that caused the cancellation rather than state intervention in this case, but I agree - for any governmental agency to simply say "you cannot see this" defies what a government should be in a democracy.