Dominic’s post infers that if wrongdoing takes place in a sacred place then one must write a script, get it published and finally get it put on in a theatre in order for that wrongdoing to be addressed.

In my opinion the best way to deal with wrongdoing is to report it to the authorities.

A religious community that cannot admit the possibility of its leaders doing wrong, or its sacred places being violated by their wrongdoing, is a community that has chosen to shut its eyes and ears to evil, and to be complicit in the silencing of those who suffer as a result of that evil.

If I can’t say what’s on my mind, and I can’t voice dissent against my community, I am not free; nor do those in my community benefit from any true ‘freedom’. My freedom is *not* to ‘get what I want’ - my freedom is merely to be able to say what I want before others without fear of losing my rights (or life, or livelihood, or ability) to do so.

The woman in question voiced her dissent against those of others within her community. Regardless of the spectacle that the play may have been for those outside the community, when viewed from within the Sikh community, the actions can be clearly seen as a successful silencing of the voice of an individual.

Both the fact of that silencing, and its mechanism (violence) are in direct opposition to our concepts of liberty, and must be abhorred.

You can’t even argue that these were the words of an ‘outsider’ aggravating a group of ‘oppressed’ individuals (oppressed *by those words*) - the person in question is commenting on a society she feels a part of, and wronged by; she chose the stage, but could easily have chosen a book or a host of other mediums to convey her dissent.

If she were standing on Speaker’s Corner, and the riot happened, we’d all be nodding our heads and saying how wrong it was she was silenced; instead, the corner was a corner of a playhouse, and some suddenly think that the change of venue is a fundamental change in position. It is not - the playhouse has as long, and as strong a tradition of social commentary and voicing dissent as the aforementioned Corner, and should be seen in the same light.

If the play sucks, it sucks. Let it die on its own merits and failures. If the commentary is unfair, they can feel free to voice their own opinion - but their action must be to do so, not to use that voice to drown or silence the voice of dissent. To speak as to be heard is a right; to speak to prevent another from being heard is a travesty of that right, and a twisting of all that we hold dear.

Maybe I’m reading too much (or not enough) into what Uncarved Block said, but as I have read his comments and argued with and against him in the past, I assume that he also was talking about the principle of the thing and simply had not followed the argument all the way through. In fact, he does actually say as much in a few places; I can’t be arsed to go and retrieve all the quotes, but they’re there.

Anyway, again we are getting away from the topic of this particular thread.

Uncarvedblock said "Recompense for the actions of your forebears is also a faily straightforward concept and common practice in international law. ….(he gives examples)….. restitution for the african slave trade. Each case has their pros and cons but the principle is reasonably well accepted."

It seems to me he said that he thinks compensation for slavery should be paid and that he thinks the idea makes sense NOW, today.

My point was, how can this make any sense at all? Have you read my links? Who would pay and to whom? Both my great grandparents were bastard offspring of local gentry (truth or family agrandisement? Perhaps it was the furrier.) - can I have some money please? My partner is 50/50 mixed race - should she pay half and receive half of this compensation? It’s dangerous nonesense.

Again, I happen to agree with Sapphrine; if I want to watch a play or a movie or anything else, that is my RIGHT. It is also the right of others who disagree with what I am watching to voice their opinions - but NOT to the extent of taking the law into their own hands.

In a true democracy, on contentious issues, a compromise would be reached. In this case, as a for instance, those who disagree with the plays content could take their complaints to the censorship authorities. It is a sad reflection of the times and of this country in general that political correctness overcomes common sense almost every single time. If people are blockading a theatre because they don’t like what is being shown, tough tit. They are surely breaking the law by stopping others from exercising their rights to free action and choice; threatening behaviour; and probably violence too. Every single one of them should have been moved on - and locked up if they refused.

Once again though the "government" of this land; let me rephrase that - the crowd of self-seeking hypocritical cowards who occupy Westminster - have let the country down by not taking a stance. Although one can agree up to a point that both sides of the argument have their own merits, it is simply not on that the nay-sayers should take direct action to back their opinions.

The rights to freedom of thought, speech and action, while being basic principles of democracy, obviously have limits. For instance, although I can freely slag the government off all I want, I know that to incite rebellion can be construed as a crime. Therefore I limit my ire up to a point. The same principle SHOULD apply to anyone who didn’t like this play. Sure, they can be dismayed, hurt, angry, and express those emotions volubly to any who will listen. But when it comes to an angry mob surrounding the theater, then you have to say that some re-education on the basic principles of democracy and personal responsibility are long overdue. Sadly, if the community who needs this re-education is an ethnic minority, then it will not happen - once again PC will take over.

Have a look at these views and then tell me who you think could sue whom :-

1. West Indian view: <a href="http://debate.uvm.edu/dreadlibrary/mclean.html">http://debate.uvm.edu/dreadlibrary/mclean.html</a>
2. USA WASP (?) view: <a href="http://www.patriotist.com/abarch/ab20010305.htm">http://www.patriotist.com/abarch/ab20010305.htm</a>
3. Humanist on Muslims+slavery: <a href="http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/tr05manu.htm">http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/tr05manu.htm</a>

I accept that privilege may have connotations that I didn&#8217;t intend but I thought it was acceptable shorthand for wealth, power, rights etc.

If you want to know more about the slavery compensation issue then the link below would be a good start. While I sympathise with the principle I&#8217;m not sure how it should be implemented in practice. However, that&#8217;s a totally different argument and we shouldn&#8217;t stray too much off topic in this thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2210545.stm

———————–

If i want to go see a play on an offensive slant then i don’t want to feel intimidated by a mob of people outside the building. I don’t want the play to be stopped halfway through because the only thing stopping a full blown destruction of the theatre is a line of police 2 deep outside. I don’t believe that people storming a theatre and damaging property is classifiable as ‘voicing’ an opinion although it certainly makes a point that you don’t like something… maybe we should just let that go unchecked… next time a priest or a rabbi or in fact anyone says anything remotely against the status quo, no matter what kind of clausals or rhetoric they spout; why don’t we just storm their house in protest of their opinion?

Is this ridiculous?….