The closing of the play, "Behzti" in Birmingham is being hailed by many Sikhs as a victory for democracy and common sense.

Others may think it is a victory for mob rule and censorship, an anti-democratic act which robs people of the freedom to watch a play of their choice. Theatre goers are not the passive viewers of tv who may inadvertently see something which may cause offence.
Another question has to be, if the mob in question had been had been strikers picketing a building or business, whether the police response would have been tougher? I rather think it would.

What I don't like is the notion that because it shows bad things happening in a Sikh Temple then it is offending the religion.

Would the same thing happening with a church provoke a similar reaction (and would it breach blasphemy laws?)

If it is the fact that you cannot associate the concepts of religion and bad things happening within the same piece of work is that not state promotion of religion?

Technically we are not a secular state, so promotion of a religion (specifically Anglicanism) is a part of our constitution.

I think it is a shame that relgious groups can have such an impact on the artistic life of our country, but whilst we still have blasphemy laws I can understand non Christian religions feeling prejudiced against.

sometimes think we take cultural diversity too far

I think it's shocking that the play has been cancelled.It was written by a Sikh so it's not as if it is someone writing a play with no knowledge of Sikhism.They are welcome to protest,wear banners,write letters etc using their own right of expression but they shouldn't threaten freedom of artistic expression or use violence.

Originally posted by sarah_d
I think it's shocking that the play has been cancelled.It was written by a Sikh so it's not as if it is someone writing a play with no knowledge of Sikhism.They are welcome to protest,wear banners,write letters etc using their own right of expression but they shouldn't threaten freedom of artistic expression or use violence.
violence is never the answer. we have freedom of speach in england and should be allowed to use it. im offended by lots of things but wouldnt go around smashing things up. On a plus point - everyone is curious about this play, any publicity is good publicity??

I can't actually see how this can possibly be seen as a triumph for democracy - a minority enforce their views on the majority - not very democratic is it even for our odd notions of democracy!

I think an ethnic minority has shot itself in the foot here and done a great deal to promote racism. It has given the BNP a perfect excuse to promote its policies. If the play had gone ahead without protest it would have come and gone and soon been forgotten about.

I tend to think that if they have been offended then they have every right to protest as long as it remains peacefull.
I also think that the idea of free speech is one which is going to be increasingly seen as no longer the case.
Finally I dont think this is some kind of victory for the BNP it is on the contrary a victory for mob rule.

These controversies will always occur from time to time, and they're by no means restricted to non-Christian religions, as anyone who remember the release of the Life of Brian will testify.

I agree with Roy that they have every right to protest. But censorship, on the whole, is a bad thing - having not seen the play, I don't have a clue as to the level of offence it may cause, though a fair few of its fiercest critics haven't watched it either...

:loopy: The world's gone mad.
What happened to 'tollerance' that the minority groups have been clamouring for since before their trouser bottoms dried?

The seekers are running the asylum :rant:

There is no democracy in our country no more.Ron Atkinson went to the USA to talk about racism & he was astounded by the way African Americans can call each other N****R & it's ok but a white man say's it & it's racism,what a load of rubbish.Now we have a problem, everytime something comes out on TV,Cinema & Theatre & the other cultures who live in the UK do not like it they can cause a riot,what a crock.We are supposed to live in a multi cultural society & if something is said about the Christian Religion then it's ok.Well I am sorry but we live in a society of freedom of speech & if thats stops because of some idiots who think they can batter anything they do not agree with then our country is doomed.I am no racist before anyone jumps on the bandwagon.

What amuses me about the whole thing is the way the Daily Mail has tied itself up in knots condemning the fact that the play was closed due to pressure from a mob. Anybody on here remember the fuss the self same paper made about the rape scenes in Romans in Britain?

I'm sure that if it had been about a rape scene in a Cathedral then it would have been the Mail at the forefront of any campaign to get it banned.

Obviously, in principle, people have the right to freedom of expression, subject to the law. The main difficulty arises when people start producing literature that insults somebody else's religious beliefs. To what extent should that be permissible. If somebody produced a play depicting clergy engaged in rape and murder in a Christian church, wouldn't Christians be up in arms about it?

Christians have been known to make intense protests against some films alleged to be insulting to their faith, such as the Last Temptation of Christ and the Life of Brian. I think some of these films were banned from been screened in cinemas by certain local authorities.

So the question is, should people be allowed to make films which cause insult to a particular religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Sikh or whatever? Or would restrictions on this, be classed as a violation of free speech?

Originally posted by Lickszz
If somebody produced a play depicting clergy engaged in rape and murder in a Christian church, wouldn't Christians be up in arms about it?


Not sure about rape but regarding murder, 'Becket' by Jean Anouilh is regarded as a classic and taught to schools as we chat.

Originally posted by Lickszz
The main difficulty arises when people start producing literature that insults somebody else's religious beliefs.
Hmmm, is that what happened here ?

1) The author is herself a Sikh
2) Although offence was obviously taken, was any actually intended ?

Food for thought...

Originally posted by cgksheff
Not sure about rape but regarding murder, 'Becket' by Jean Anouilh is regarded as a classic and taught to schools as we chat.

Not the same thing. In that, the clergyman was the victim. In the current play, it would appear that Sikh clergymen are portrayed as the perpetrators of the acts. That is what is offending the Sikhs.

I can't think of an example of a play depicting Christian clergy committing rape and murder.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Hmmm, is that what happened here ?

1) The author is herself a Sikh
2) Although offence was obviously taken, was any actually intended ?

Food for thought...

With regard to number 1 - Does that mean that is isn't possible to insult the Sikh religion?

With regard to number 2 - That statement is never going to hold water in this day and age.

Acts of violence can never be condoned. But the problem is, as I see it, is that under current law, the Sikhs cannot take the matter to the law courts. The only religion currently protected by blasphemy laws is Christianity.

It was the exact same problem as with the Satanic Verses. Undoubtedly that book was highly blasphemous towards Islam, but Muslims had no legal redress whatsoever.

The blasphemy laws should be extended to cover all religions, or abolish them altogether. Politicians prefer to keep away from this issue, because it is potentially a political hot potato.

Originally posted by Lickszz

The blasphemy laws should be extended to cover all religions, or abolish them altogether. Politicians prefer to keep away from this issue, because it is potentially a political hot potato.

Totally agree and I think that is the opinion of the government.

In my opinion the right option was to abolish blasphemy laws, but the government did not fancy the uproar that there would be if the blasphemy laws were abolished (can you IMAGINE what the Daily Mail would say - I think Tony Blair has probably woken up in a cold sweat thinking about it) so they went for the option of extending it to everybody.

Incidentally, will I be able to invent a new religion every time I want to sue somebody I don't like?

I just wish we'd all shut up[ and leave each other alone. A certain amount of censorship is necessary so that we can all live peacefully. If that means political correctness, then so be it.