Posted on 12/27/2004 9:27:35 PM PST by quidnunc
On the 18th of this month, 1,000 enraged Sikhs stormed the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, throwing eggs, smashing windows, injuring three police officers, attempting to climb onto the stage, and successfully halting the production after it had played for 20 minutes. "Behzti," Punjabi for "dishonor," had aroused the mob's ire because the playwright, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, had placed its rape scene in a Sikh temple. Ms. Bhatti, herself a British-born Sikh, had resisted local pressure to move the incendiary action to a religiously neutral setting like a community center.
The upshot: Score one for yahooism, zero for law. Reluctantly, the Birmingham Rep canceled the run, for neither the theater nor the police could guarantee the safety of audience and staff. Determined to defend free speech, a second Birmingham company volunteered to stage the play instead, only to withdraw the offer at the request of the playwright, now in hiding after receiving several death threats.
Even more distressing than the triumph of shattered plate glass is the rhetoric to which this conflict has given rise and not only from conservative Sikhs, but from leaders of the Catholic Church. The views of Harmander Singh, spokesman for a Sikh advocacy group, were echoed by numerous British television news guests for days: "We are not against freedom of speech, but there's no right to offend."
Oh, but indeed there is.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Primitive.
"We are not against freedom of speech, but there's no right to offend."
Freedom of speech is there to protect offensive speech. Speech that is not offensive does not need protection.
O really? I bet they would not dare to set it in a mosque, not to offend Mooslims, but Sikhs should suffer the insult quietly?
And you all bitch about us Atheists and secularists. At least we don't beat the hell out of people, slit their throats, and burn down buildings. NEWS FLASH: Islam is a MUCH greater threat than secularism.
Particularly when the offense is intentional. Authors and play-writes put out this material that is specifically designed to offend people, and then they act surprised when people are offended. And then all the rest of us have to go through this idiotic soul-searching "freedom of speech" debate for the zillionth time about a piece of work that is essentially crap and was probably done for the sole purpose of generating publicity.
Perhaps, but at least you admit that you ARE a threat.
No, the Atheists and secularists just poison and destroy and rot societies slowly over time.
Shikhs hate Islam so it is okay to offend them.
I find it interesting that they weren't mad that there was a rape scene, but that it took place in a Sikh temple.
I did not say that. I basically said it is ok to offend sikhs and the sikhs are equally free to offend or speak out too.
It is "dangerous speech" that is not protected by the constitution. Offensive speech is. Now what defines dangerous and offensive is open to interpretation at the edges.
socialists and communists ARE atheists and secularists and have killed more people than any religion.
The Nazis weren't secularists; they thought they were doing God's work. The Wehrmacht had "Gott mit uns" (God is with us) stamped on their belts, for crying out loud!
As for Stalin, his murderous rampages were inspired more by personal paranoia than anything else. Atheism was, admittedly, the official stance of the Party, and they did indeed close churches and seize their property (which they also did to nearly every landover, btw...). But there wasn't any comprehensive campaign to exterminate people who believed in God. If so, 90% of the population would have been killed.
I wonder how long it will be before the entire world is the "Third World."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.