A play in which Jesus is portrayed as a Transsexual women has caused a small group of Christians to stand outside and picket the Tron theatre in Glasgow. The play, which is part of the Glasgay! arts festival, a celebration of Scotland's gay, bi-sexual and transsexual culture (err, sounds great?).
It almost certainly would have passed by unnoticed by anyone (and very possibly with an audience of less than a couple of dozen), but no doubt the publicity will swell the attention it receives.
Somewhat disengenuously the Glasgay! producer Steven Thomson said that "This work is not intended to incite or offend anyone of any belief system. However, we respect your right to disagree with that opinion." and festival organisers described the protester placards as possibly inciting homophobia.
Somewhat more interestingly Pastor Jack Bell, of the Zion Baptist Church in Glasgow, who took part in the protest, said: "If this play had treated the prophet Mohammed in the same way there would have been a strong reaction from the Islamic community, but that just wouldn't happen."
As that very thought must have occurred to many of us, I got to wondering why the Muslim community, who occasionally pretend that as Jesus is a prophet of their religion, then their violent protests in the name of Islam are really defending Christians as well, weren't out supporting these Christian protesters.
They weren't of course, as their religion is centred solely on Mohmmed these days.
Of course the Muslims aren't alone in using violence to suppress 'Free Speech'. The Sikhs for example used violent protest to suppress a play about sex abuse and murder in a Sikh temple. Similarly the Mohmmed cartoon row was a very violent attempt to stop Western Freedom of Speech.
As Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, an honorary member of the National Secular Society said at the time of the Sikh protests "We shouldn't allow self-appointed religious representatives to restrict the freedom of speech."
Oddly, a play about Muslim girls being forced in to prostitution to serve in Mujra (courtesan) clubs, was held in the same theatre as the Sikh play was stopped in, with no Muslim protests ..... as our American friends like to say "Go figure".
Saturday, 7 November 2009
2 comments:
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.
the writer fails to mention that in my own words i said "this is a literary work of fiction Glasgay! support the right to freedom of expression." It is one of the universally accepted international human rights and whether we agree or not we are free to write books, plays, films or any other works of fiction interpreting the world around us and the social context in which we live. You just may not like it. You don't have to read it, nor do you have to visit the theatre. You are free to choose.
ReplyDeleteI think that if you had read my post properly, instead of going off on a little speech defending yourself against an attack that I hadn't actually made, you would see that I wrote in support of the cause of "freedom of speech", against 'any' religions trying to prevent it.
ReplyDeleteI might add, that the fact that you chose to portray a religious leader in a controversial manner, can hardly be described as an act likely to not to "incite or offend anyone of any belief system".
I would even argue that it was a subject precisely likely to garner the sort of response (and subsequent publicity) that it received.
However, as I support all free speech (as well as the right to peaceful protest against that speech), that includes supporting works that cover even controversial subject matters, such as portrayals of Mohammad, rape in Sikh temples, or transvestite versions of Jesus Christ.
I actually quoted Evan Harris, "We shouldn't allow self-appointed religious representatives to restrict the freedom of speech", at my post summary, which if you reread I think you would have to acknowlege, was Pro Free Speech.