If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Play "offensive to Sikhs" is demonstrated against
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
How typical that they have to go and trash the place though.
Sling the scum in jail is what I say.
How typical that they have to go and trash the place though.
Sling the scum in jail is what I say.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
lets hope the violent protestors get thrown in jail like all idiotic followers do
What they did was obviously wrong, but you can't talk as if they went straight in lobbing bricks at the actors and that kind of thing, because it just isn't true.
for once you have a point :thumb:
In the loosest sense, yeah.
Of course they didn't just wade in, but they DID do it.
That does not translate as "yeah, good on them, fucking racists. Who the fuck do they think they are doing such an insulting thing. The attack yesterday, criminal damage, I support it completely!".
Not everyone in Stoke has a good grasp of English though;)
If that was an attempt at a witty retort, you should have taken out the "this does not translate as" and the speech marks.
Better luck next time.
I worry about you sometimes dude.
A minority of protestors broke in and the organiser condemned them without reservation. Having listened to a debate about the play and the protes, I actually support their stance. As has already been pointed out, the protest has been ongoing all week. The play covers rape and muder in a Sikh temple. Even the playwright has said that it could be based anywhere but is hiding behind a freedom of expression argument.
Freedom is one thing, incitement is another.
The play is not about the sikh religion, carries no morals about religion hiding crimes. So why base it in a holy monument?
No shit
I think the playwright is doing it for the attention, just like the one in St Andrews did. And both should have been shut down, because they were just causing mischief for no reason.
But that isn't really the point.
they were following the example of chief christian jesus.
he got angry and trashed a holy place never mind a theatre.
Mhmmm a temple... A very important temple to the Jews at the time, hence he was thought to have been tried twice (because of Roman rule). A lot of animals were sold for sacrifice and he went in and shit-kicked the merchents saying something about a house of prayer being a house of merchents and thiefs... So really... Jesus wasn't respecting his fellow Jews with an open mind, he was violating their tradition (but saying that, he wanted a change... it was the only way he could get one).
The lesson being propogated by this sequence of events is that if I don't like something someone's saying, and I kick up enough of a violent fuss, then I can silence them.
The whole point of free speech is that it protects the right of people to say *anything*, including things which we may find to be abhorrent and appaling; 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Free speech is supposed to be offensive! Hell, the whole Western theatrical tradition is supposed to be offensive! (In Athens it began as a way of expressing thoughts and feelings which were too inflammatory to discuss in 'real' life)
Not true. With freedoms come responsibilty and you have a responsibilty to be able to defend what you are saying.
This was a play, not a statement. It was not a critique of a religion. It was about some crimes. Even the paywright admitted that it could have been set anywhere else. So why didn't she?
well cause it could be set anywhere, she chose to set it herself, if she chose a catholic church, no one would care, there would be complaints and protests at most
but nothing violent
the fact the local sikh community has failed to condemn the violent protestors, shows they support their methods, which is where my complaints are
people have the right to offend, however people also have the right to complain, within legal means though, not violence - and the play just says horrific things can happen in places of supposed peace and worship due to corrupt people not corrupt religion
was a good interview with a english catholic bishop today, he was saying how its oaky for people to be offended, but the best idea to limit violent results is to just converse and ask to remove the thing causing it, or ask for recognition that isnt jsut trying to cause controversy
Have I defended the violence?
Actually not true. I was listening to Radio 5 on the night in question. They were interviewing the leader of the protests in their studio when the news came in. He condemned it immediately, and continuously during the next hour.
oh okay i hadnt seen any evidence myself, if they have, fair enough, the media should show it more
and i werent talking about you.... in the part beforehand
the community leaders could have chosen to be seen as tollerent, but instead they have given themselves a bad reputation in allowing the protest to become violent. all they needed to do was exspress their conserns. they didn't need to order protests, and then let them become violent.
britian is no longer a place of free speech.
Why should she have to? It may be a great play, it may be terrible, but I will defend to the hilt her right to say her piece. No one's going to bother banning things which don't 'offend' anyone are they? Freedom of expression *is* the freedom to say things which upset people, make them angry, make them sad; to 'offend' them (and isn't that the most pathetic critical judgement a person can make?). If we become afraid of 'causing offence' then we all suffer as a result; someone will *always* be 'offended'. What should have happened is that the play should have gone on, the protestors allowed to carry on protesting and the police prevented any violence.
I've even seen, on various forums, the defence of 'we protested peacefully for ages before we used violence'; enough said I feel.
wow u summed that up great :thumb:
ps - chat later
not quite ...it was the money lenders he was angry at.
each year a pilgramage was made to the temple from all over the world ...the known world of the time meaning ...people would be turning up from all over europe and asia and the orient ...they had to go to the currency exchange which had moved right into the heart of the temple.
having a currency exchange and banking/loan system withithe temple itself ...along with all ki nds of other merchants was in no way a tradition!
plus ...those selling animals for sacrifice were selling second rate animals in a lot of cases when the rule was ...you sacrificed only the best ...not the lame and sick and weedy worthless ones ...otherwise the value of your sacrifice was meaningless.
I believe there are limits to freedom of expression... but then again no person, body, institution or religion can ever be beyond criticism or parody.
The trick as always is striking the right balance. In this particular case, I think the play should have continued.
If Blunkett's hated new bill comes into effect things will get much much worse. Put it this way: masterpieces such as 'The Life of Brian' would probably have been deemed illegal under Blunkett's proposed bill.
If it was a critique then I would agree with you, but it was a drama. It was not appropriate and it was unnecessarily offensive. It was also immensely stupid.
Judging by the comments here I am sure that you have all campaigned for Ron Atkinson to keep his job at ITV after he referred to Desailly as a lazy nigger. I'm sure that you have all defended his right to make such comments...
erm its not against the law to offend a religion, distasteful perhaps, but allowed nonetheless, and im more ashamed at the fact the local religious leaders didnt instantly condemn the violent minority's actions any quicker and seperate themselves from the violent people
the play werent even criticising the religion, it only offended cause bad things happened in a sacred place, well people take the piss out of things catholic preists do in churches etc and noone says "oh you could of placed it somewhere less offensive" cause crimes can be commited anywhere, in the name of anything
Firstly the comment about catholic priests was made during the phone in which I referred to earlier, there was also a comment about how this play could have been used to look at the way that the Sikh community reacted to the crimes which took place in the temple.
For the catholics it was pointed out that "fiddling with little" boys has actually happened, and on a regular basis.
The play didn't address the issues of Sikh reaction to the crimes.
As you say, these crimes - notably rape and murder - can happen anywhere. The venue was irrelevant to the story. So why include it?
I respect people's right to critique, their right to form part of a debate. That is part of freedom of speech. Making offensive comments for the hell of it actually falls under the "incitement" category IMHO.
why not put it in a religious place?....
99% of plays like this are outside that scenario, so its entire proportional to society, its not like every play does this
and saying offensive comments for the sake of it, theyre only offensive if you take offence, and the sikh community is only complaining cause its like blasphemy to them, well i dont see a gurdwara as exempt from human corruption, like i dont see courts, churches/temples, as exempt from human corruption
i cant think of anything to say where everyone wont be offended by it, the idea is to just ignore, and lead by example, well since im the one going to hell to them so it works both ways :rolleyes:
their response was basically over the top, if they just complained or protested sure, but nothing defends the violence