Downing Street Says » Sikh Play

Asked if the Government considered the situation in Birmingham as a case of freedom of speech rights or just a law and order case the PMS referred journalists to what both Estelle Morris and Fiona McTaggert had said yesterday earlier this morning. In response to the sugestion that Fiona McTaggert was impling that it was entirely a question of policing the PMS said that was not her understanding of it. Obviously it was a question of order but there was also the question of the right to freedom of expression on all sides and it was about finding a balance.

25 Comments »

This is not about freedom of speech, it is about protecting against gratuitous offense. Plays are not debates, where opposing parties can be challenged and made to defend their point of view. Why should a playwright be "free" to suggest that Sikh priests rape worshippers within the temple, and then to repeat that suggestion unchallenged every day with a matinee on Saturdays? It is a disgraceful storyline that offends all faiths, and I admire the Sikhs for defending their beliefs. I also noted the very reasonable tone they adopted in interviews, no fiery rhetoric, just dismay and hurt.
Comment by Neil Moore-Smith — 21 Dec 2004 on 10:39 pm | Link
not to mention the odd riot
Comment by colonel mad — 21 Dec 2004 on 11:14 pm | Link
They should be free to suggest it because they are just that, free. I agree that the assertion should not go unchallenged, and i thought that the "disclaimer" that was read before every performance was quite a good way of solving it.

If the playwright wishes to write a play that involves such material, then that is their right. Do the people who think the play should be stopped just not want the play performed, or did they not want it written? or perhaps, the writer should not have thought about it?

Of course it is about freedom of speech, how will we decide what is "gratuitous offense", and how do you distinguish it from being told things you just don’t want to hear? If the material is based on no fact at all, then that should be pointed out, as it was in the reading at the start of every performance. Just because you have a religion doesn’t mean you don’t have to live in the real world.
Comment by Lodjer — 22 Dec 2004 on 10:58 am | Link
But why are people complaining that the play was stopped? The author voiced his ideas freely, the Sikhs voiced theirs, freely. Then the theatre weighed up whether it was good business to offend a large section of the community. No one was coerced. Is that democracy, or what?
Comment by Neil Moore-Smith — 22 Dec 2004 on 11:52 am | Link
I agree if everyone wanted it stopped it should be stopped. But did everyone? If no-one wanted it on, it would not have been on in the first place. They are thinking of putting it on in London now, at the, er, that place (I forget which).
Comment by Lodjer — 22 Dec 2004 on 12:00 pm | Link
"No-one was co-erced" ??
If I had bricks flung through my windows I suspect I might just feel the tiniest bit co-erced.
Comment by Red Robbo — 22 Dec 2004 on 3:21 pm | Link
It’s only offensive views that need the protection of a right to free speech.
Comment by Monty — 22 Dec 2004 on 8:46 pm | Link
yes monty, just like yours
Comment by Uncarved Block — 22 Dec 2004 on 9:58 pm | Link
Unlike yours, I suppose, with your totalitarian approach problem solving? Here’s what you think….

"The issue of \x91pulling down the aristocracy\x92 is quite separate but does share similar issues. They are also an outdated relic of the country\x92s past and undeserved privilege similarly has no place in a civilised society. The sooner they are put into rehabilitation programmes to enable them to live a normal life the better. Their accumulated wealth can then be used to benefit everyone else, as some recompense for their ancestors’ abuse of their fellow men and women"

Uncarvedblock on fox hunting.

Deserved Privilege – very Animal Farm don’t you think? Rehabilitation to ‘enable’ people to live a ‘normal’ life – 1984? Recompense for one’s ancestor’s abuse – what sort of loopy idea is that? How far back do we go – to our original nest in Africa?
Comment by Mr Pooter — 23 Dec 2004 on 10:28 am | Link
Well, maybe the ancestral wrongs cannot be righted, and perhaps the rhetoric goes a little far, but hey, sod it, i’m all for it, nothing to lose and everything to gain! Uncarvedblock, I am right behind you!
Comment by Lodjer — 23 Dec 2004 on 12:43 pm | Link
Not sure which of my views are offensive to you UncarvedBlock, but I guess that’s the point isn’t it? You think that the law should be used to silence people who disagree with you. I don’t. I think that your ideas are a danger to a free society. But rest assured that I would fight to defend your right to disseminate them.
Comment by Monty — 23 Dec 2004 on 5:03 pm | Link
Monty my point is exactly the opposite. Free speech is not there to protect views that people find offensive, its there to protect your right to say whatever you want. The assumption that free speech is only about what causes offence is what I found offensive.

Mr Pooter, free speech also protects my right to have a rant every-so-often even if it is not the most cogent form of argument.

Deserved privilege is what happens in a meritocratic society as opposed to underserved privilege in a feudal system or no privilege at all in communism (theory not practice). You get what you deserve – seems a fairly sensible idea to me.

Recompense for the actions of your forebears is also a faily straightforward concept and common practice in international law. Iraq is still paying compensation to american multinational companies for the ‘damage’ caused during gulf war part 1. There are also ongoing cases asking for compensation from Japan for WW2 prisoners of war and a multinational campaign for restitution for the african slave trade. Each case has their pros and cons but the principle is reasonably well accepted.

If you disagree with these ideas then by all means argue against them (I’m not claiming to support all of them but I enjoy the debate). The only thing I would say is that ‘animal farm’, ‘1984’ and ‘politically correct’ mean different things to different people. I don’t take them all as criticism.:-)
Comment by Uncarved Block — 23 Dec 2004 on 7:28 pm | Link
"Obviously it was a question of order but there was also the question of the right to freedom of expression on all sides and it was about finding a balance."

This is an absolutely shameful thing for the government to say. The question isn’t about "finding a balance" between the "right to freedom of expression on all sides". People have the right of freedom of expression. The theatre was denied that by a bunch of violent thugs running a campaign of criminal intimidation. The government has to prevent people trying to stop others from saying things they don’t like by using criminal means. They’ve been disgracefully silent on this.

"But why are people complaining that the play was stopped?"

You may have not been reading the papers very carefully. There was a riot, the theatre was trashed, and more of the same was threatened. People shouldn’t be stopped from going about their lawful activity by criminals. People don’t have a right to be protected against gratuitous offense. People do have a right to be protected against violence.
Comment by Square Peg — 23 Dec 2004 on 9:24 pm | Link
Uncarved Bloc – Don’t you find the conjunction of ‘privilege’ and ‘meritocracy’ contradictory?

Who, exactly, would sue whom for the slave trade?

I thought what you said was very clear: "The issue of \x91pulling down the aristocracy\x92 is quite separate but does share similar issues. They are also an outdated relic of the country\x92s past and undeserved privilege similarly has no place in a civilised society. The sooner they are put into rehabilitation programmes to enable them to live a normal life the better. Their accumulated wealth can then be used to benefit everyone else, as some recompense for their ancestors’ abuse of their fellow men and women"
Comment by Mr Pooter — 23 Dec 2004 on 11:46 pm | Link
"The government has to prevent people trying to stop others from saying things they don’t like by using criminal means."

This sentence has a slight ambiguity to it. What I meant was the Government has to act to stop people using criminal actions to supress other’s freedom of speech.
Comment by Square Peg — 24 Dec 2004 on 1:47 am | Link
But why are people complaining that the play was stopped? The author voiced his ideas freely, the Sikhs voiced theirs, freely. Then the theatre weighed up whether it was good business to offend a large section of the community. No one was coerced. Is that democracy, or what?

———————–

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?….
Comment by Sapphrine — 24 Dec 2004 on 8:10 am | Link
Mr Pooter,

I accept that privilege may have connotations that I didn’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’m not sure how it should be implemented in practice. However, that’s a totally different argument and we shouldn’t stray too much off topic in this thread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2210545.stm
Comment by Uncarved Block — 24 Dec 2004 on 10:00 am | Link
You raised slavery. Why? I see no merit in hurling ancestral guilt around – the reverse, in fact. At its mildest it is pointless and at its worst, twisted in the wrong mouths, it becomes racist and divisive.

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>
Comment by Mr Pooter — 24 Dec 2004 on 11:50 am | Link
Mr. Pooter; I do believe Uncarved Block was merely using slavery to illustrate the point that this issue could, if one really wanted to, be followed back into antiquity. I happen to agree up to a point – after all, what is the "Royal" family but the remnants of the family who killed the most people and nicked all their wealth and land?

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.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 Dec 2004 on 2:44 pm | Link
Papalazzaru says "… Uncarved Block was merely using slavery to illustrate the point that this issue could … be followed back into antiquity."

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.
Comment by Mr Pooter — 24 Dec 2004 on 3:28 pm | Link
When I said I happen to agree, what I mean is I happen to agree IN PRINCIPLE. You’re right too; it is dangerous nonsense to get into recompense for events in the past. After all, how exactly do you gauge the value of slavery, or poverty or whatever else? Sure, a recognition that ones forebears were bad buggers and a corresponding apology should be enough; after all, as you say otherwise where will it end?

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.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 Dec 2004 on 4:42 pm | Link
Freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press, are the foundations and cornerstones of any free civil society.

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.
Comment by Gregory Block — 28 Dec 2004 on 2:53 pm | Link
To talk of "finding a balance" when the speech of a dissenting member of a minority is silenced by the violent actions of others in that minority is to resort to a nauseating evasion. There is no balance: there is one person’s boot on another’s windpipe, and it is the clear duty of the state to intervene against the bullies.
Comment by Dominic Fox — 28 Dec 2004 on 9:15 pm | Link
It is also to be noted that priests of all religions have not been above a little recreational rape and sexual abuse – and where better than the holiest inner sanctum, if you want to be really certain that no-one will believe the victim? Are Sikh holy men really better than everybody else’s? 100% of the time?

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.
Comment by Dominic Fox — 28 Dec 2004 on 9:33 pm | Link
The author of the play did say it was a fictional piece of work. It is absurd to suggest that finding a work of fiction offensive is in any way linked to a religious group not dealing with issues of abuse and rape in their community.

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.
Comment by Guy Amand — 13 Jan 2005 on 8:48 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Tuesday, December 21, 2004

Sikh Play

25 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries