Religious Censorship
Sikhs storm theatre to demand closure of play that ‘violates their sacred place’
A controversial play depicting sexual abuse and murder in a Sikh temple was at the centre of a clash between artistic freedom and religious sensitivities last night amid threats of more angry protests today following Saturday’s violent demonstrations outside Birmingham Repertory Theatre.
Thousands of Sikhs from all over Britain are threatening to converge on the theatre tonight if the play, Behzti, (Dishonour) which was written by Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, continues its sold-out run. The author, a Sikh woman, has also received threats of violence, while the theatre has condemned the protests and warned against “blatant censorship”.
It would be easy to point to the dangers of allowing a mob - any mob - to determine what can and can’t be shown. There is very little that doesn’t offend one group or another and it’s frighteningly easy to get a mob frothing at the mouth over any perceived slight.
So instead, I thought I’d remark on the delusional nature of some of these campaigners.
According to Gurdial Singh Atwal, who has been leading the campaign against the play:
But you should also consider who is provoking this violence - who is creating this anger but the author herself.
This is absolute rubbish from the “it’s not my fault” school of thought. The people protesting against this play are not automatons - they are people and (I’m assuming) reasonably intelligent. As such, they are capable of choosing how they want to react to this play.
No-one is making these people converge on the theatre and no-one is forcing them to storm the theatre, attack security guards, destroy a foyer door or smash restaurant windows. The people who commit these crimes are solely responsible for their actions.
Of course, the real danger with this sort of thinking is that it allows people to justify any act - regardless of how atrocious - to themselves. As such, it’s not entirely surprising to read:
Ms Bhatti said she had been advised not to comment because of threats which had been made to her…
Regardless of what she wrote, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti is the victim of threats, not the perpetrator.
And then there is the attempt to widen the scope of the protest. Back to Mr Atwal who has tried to claim that:
This is not just about Sikhs. If this was set in a church or a mosque or any other place of worship there would be the same strong feelings.
Evidently a man who has never seen The Day Today, the first episode of which included a sketch about clerical bullying in the Church of England. And, while I have no doubt that plenty of people turned their TVs off and never watched the series again, and while I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the BBC received complaints, I don’t recall hoards of angry Anglicans descending on Broadcasting House.
Anglicanism is not immune to investigation, criticism or even satire - and nor should any other religion be.
And what of the implication of Atwal’s assertion? No place of worship should ever be depicted unless you are going to use rose tinted spectacles to look at it. Does this mean that The Magdalene Sisters shouldn’t have been made? Or Bad Education?
And it doesn’t take much of a stretch to get from “places of worship” to “religion”, at which point you might want to rush out and buy Monty Python’s Life of Brian before it gets banned.
For a final word, this is from the foreword of the play:
I believe that drama should be provocative and relevant. I wrote Behzti because I passionately oppose injustice and hypocrisy. The writers I admire are courageous … Such writers sometimes cause offence. But perhaps those who are affronted by the menace of dialogue and discussion, need to be offended.
Perhaps the protesters ought to see the play rather than get hot under the collar about it.
Monday 20 Dec 2004 | Paul | The Pit
