Ours might be a stronger and happier Society if Christians were readier to defend their values. In
the Daily Mail on Tuesday the 21st December 2004 an article
by their columnist Stephen Glover has shown a Solomon touch in his case
for Free Speech and Sensitivity in the Religious aspect of many of our citizen’s
lives. * Most people will be shocked that hundreds of Sikhs should have laid siege to a Birmingham theatre on Saturday and brought the performance of a controversial play to an early end. Windows were smashed, missiles thrown and three police officers were injured. Now
the management of the Birmingham Rep has abandoned the production of Behzti
after failing to reach an agreement with Sikh leaders. With the prospect of further riots, it could
not guarantee the safety of theatre-goers. The
play, deeply provocative to many Sikhs, depicted rape and murder in a Sikh
temple. Written by the Sikh female
writer Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, it is the story of a mother and daughter who visit
a temple where murder and abuse take place. After
Saturday’s riots, Sikh leaders had made the apparently preposterous claim that
the setting of the play should be changed from a temple to a community centre. On
the face of it, these activities amount to an outrageous suppression of free
speech. The threat of brute force has
led to the abandonment of the play that broke no laws, and which law-abiding
citizens had paid good money to see. To
force closure challenges the Values of an Open Society which most of us hold
dear. Precious Without a doubt, the incident will be used by those on the far-Right such as the BNP They will say it shows that immigrants such as Sikhs with their own religious beliefs cannot be expected to respect British customs. Others more liberal disposition will limit themselves to the observation that free speech is a precious thing that must be defended at all costs. Right
and Left will agree that the behaviour of the Sikh leaders shows how they have
not signed up to the post-enlightenment values that prevail in the host
society. Most of us accept the
proposition that we fight ideas with other ideas-not with violence and
censorship. Of
course, much of this is true. I deplore
censorship. And yet part of me is
unable to share in the general outrage.
This bit of me even feels a degree of sympathy for the Sikhs. They were protecting something precious
about their religion. No one can condone
violence, but it is difficult not to admire their- to us- very unfashionable
defence of religious beliefs. In fact, the very idea that anything goes in the theatre or literature was not born fully –formed in the Enlightenment 250 years ago. Until quite recently most people, including many who thought themselves as
liberals, believed that there should be limits on free expression, particularly
in matters of religion and sex. In the theatre the Lord
Chamberlain ensured that there were few, if any profanities.
In
the history of this country-even its democratic history-the belief that free
speech should be completely untrammelled is a very recent one. Over the past 40 years, there has been a
string of films and plays mocking Christ, not withstanding the blasphemy
laws, which are largely ignored. Monty Python’s Life of Brian showed one of the thieves crucified with Christ singing to him on the cross, Always look on the Bright Side Of Life. In the film the Last Temptation Of Christ, the saviour was depicted making love to Mary Magdalen. Such
films have caused enormous upsets, and some complaints, though we have seen
nothing to rival the Sikhs rioting in Birmingham. A recent production in St Andrews in Scotland of Terry Mac
Nally’s play Corpus Christi- that depicts Christ and his disciples as
homosexuals-did attracts a small peaceful protest by Christian fundamentalists. This
Christmas Madame Tussaud’s exhibited
sacrilegious waxworks of ‘Posh and Becks’ as Mary, mother of Jesus, Joseph,
with no regard for the feelings of Christians.
A current Channel 4 brochure carries a photographic spread of the
Gallaghers from the ‘current hit show, Shameless’. It shows them in the attitude of the apostles at the Last Supper. The figure playing Christ leans forward drunkenly. Beer can in one hand, a cigarette in the other. Notoriety What
is striking about all these examples is how poor they are as works of art. Their notoriety derives from the ability to
shock. I dare say the same can be said of Gurpreet
Kaur Bhatti’s play in Birmingham. But
even third-rate works can cause offence if the ideas they contain are
sufficiently provocative. Indeed,
it is the mark of an inferior playwright that he should set out simply to
provoke rather than to enlighten. If
Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s object was to suggest that Sikhs in temples could behave
improperly-as we know Roman Catholic priests can in their own world-she could
have made her point more subtly without inflaming the very Sikhs whom she would
presumably like to influence. Having chosen a holy temple as her setting, she could have hardly been expected to change it in order to please her critics. But she would have been wiser to have found a less contentious venue in the first place. I am not advocating suppression of free speech. It would have been better if the play had been allowed to proceed as written. But I do feel a degree of respect for the way in which Sikhs are prepared to defend their religious values in the face of merciless assaults from their enemies. They show robustness which most ordinary Christians-excepting a few fundamentalists-are too timid to express. Family And perhaps this explains why Sikhs, one of the most successful of immigrant groups observe their religion to an extent that is barely intelligible to most white Britons. For them religion is not something which may happen just at Christmas or Easter, if at all. It is part of the daily routine of their lives, and informs their belief in the importance of the family and their social group. Many will say that the religious intolerance shown by Sikhs in Birmingham shows how dangerous diverse Britain is becoming as a society. Here are people who put their religious beliefs before the notion of free speech. The same point is often made in relation to British Muslims, whose supposedly primitive beliefs are also pronounced to be pre-Enlightened. Certainly the intolerance is worrying, but the main lesson I draw from events in Birmingham is that Sikhs comprise a group in our society, which retains a laudably strong religious conviction, as well as a firm belief in the family. They are not prepared to see their beliefs mocked and degraded as many Christians have been. If
these Values could be expressed peacefully and in a way that did not threaten
free speech, would they not be an inspiration, rather than a threat to
Christian Britain? Ours
might be a stronger and happier society if Christians were readier to defend
their values, and if third-rate playwrights thought twice before attacking
them. * * * [Font altered-bolding
used-comments in brackets] [For details of a peaceful Christian fellowship, which travels the country to protest at blasphemy and insult to Christ –contact ‘Christian Voice’ Patron: The Lord Ashbourne.] *
*
The abolition of Britain * Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the absolute necessity of a REFERENDUM HEAR HIM ON http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o *
* 13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout Details from petition creator With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given DUAL CITIZENSHIP -both EUROPEAN and BRITISH The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge. The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with BRITISH DOCUMENTATION -only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents. EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP * * *
*
*
* [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
* GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU? * * FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE * July 18-2007 ALSO JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET PROTEST Readers can add their support to the growing clamour for a REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/)
The Petition reads as follows: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people will be permitted a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature." Deadline for the PETITION is 31st January,2008 Eurofacts 27th July 2007. * 'The Spirit of England' by In London on St.George's Day -1953 *
VOTE -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY *
*
* [All underlined words have a separate bulletin]
*HOME-PT 2
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
