Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shattered Glass, Battered Freedom (Don't offend minorities in the UK… or else!)
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal ^ | December 28, 2004 | Lionel Shriver

Posted on 12/27/2004 9:27:35 PM PST by quidnunc

The concept of religious "tolerance" seems to be warping apace these days.

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: freedom; freespeech

1 posted on 12/27/2004 9:27:35 PM PST by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

Primitive.


2 posted on 12/27/2004 9:38:33 PM PST by Kurt_D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

"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.


3 posted on 12/27/2004 9:38:37 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

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?


4 posted on 12/27/2004 9:43:36 PM PST by eclectic (Liberalism is a mental disorder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
staytrue wrote:

Freedom of speech is there to protect offensive speech. Speech that is not offensive does not need protection.

..........................................................

I do not totally agree with this statement. Offensive speech is not necessarily protected by the constitution. You can't verbally assault a person without consequence, you can't yell fire in a theater. Offensive speech, plays, or other forms of literature or media does not have to be protected. Why is it okay to offend someone's religious beliefs. Why is it okay to propose unnatural lifestyles as a civil liberty. I do not think it is okay and does not need to be nor is it protected. The protections were meant for constructive dissent and proper grievances against the government. You can say the President is an ineffective leader and not worry that you will be imprisoned. But if you say he is a Nazi or a pedophile your speech is then offensive and libelous and not protected. You probably won't be sent to prison, but you could (should) be sued.
5 posted on 12/27/2004 9:53:26 PM PST by phoenix0468 (One man with courage is a majority. (Thomas Jefferson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

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.


6 posted on 12/27/2004 9:54:38 PM PST by transhumanist (Science must trump superstition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Offensive speech, plays, or other forms of literature or media does not have to be protected. Why is it okay to offend someone's religious beliefs.

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.

7 posted on 12/27/2004 10:27:48 PM PST by NurdlyPeon (Wearing My 'Jammies Proudly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist

Perhaps, but at least you admit that you ARE a threat.


8 posted on 12/27/2004 10:28:19 PM PST by turnrightnow (keeper's mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist
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.

No, the Atheists and secularists just poison and destroy and rot societies slowly over time.

9 posted on 12/27/2004 10:30:54 PM PST by NurdlyPeon (Wearing My 'Jammies Proudly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: eclectic

Shikhs hate Islam so it is okay to offend them.


10 posted on 12/27/2004 10:50:49 PM PST by John Will
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

I find it interesting that they weren't mad that there was a rape scene, but that it took place in a Sikh temple.


11 posted on 12/27/2004 10:56:55 PM PST by Señor Zorro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: eclectic
but Sikhs should suffer the insult quietly?

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.

12 posted on 12/27/2004 11:36:44 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Offensive speech is not necessarily protected by the constitution

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.

13 posted on 12/27/2004 11:38:37 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist

socialists and communists ARE atheists and secularists and have killed more people than any religion.


14 posted on 12/27/2004 11:52:01 PM PST by Awestruck (The artist formerly known as Goodie D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: transhumanist
"beat the hell out of people, slit their throats, and burn down buildings." Not done by secularists? Ever hear of Hitler and Stalin?
15 posted on 12/27/2004 11:57:00 PM PST by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Isn't truth a absolute defense against a charge of libel?
16 posted on 12/28/2004 4:50:10 AM PST by Woodworker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Woodworker
Woodworker wrote:
Isn't truth a absolute defense against a charge of libel?

........................................................

As in if the libel suite is brought against someone telling the truth as opposed to someone trashing a persons character with lies? Then the burden of that truth, whatever it may be would be on the person being sued for libel wouldn't it? And in that case, if that person could not prove that what they said was true, even if it might be, they are still committing libel.
17 posted on 12/28/2004 4:13:40 PM PST by phoenix0468 (One man with courage is a majority. (Thomas Jefferson))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Malesherbes
Ever hear of Hitler and Stalin?

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.

18 posted on 12/28/2004 7:32:38 PM PST by transhumanist (Science must trump superstition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc

I wonder how long it will be before the entire world is the "Third World."


19 posted on 12/28/2004 7:39:13 PM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson