Home Office minister for race equality, Fiona Mactaggart refuses to condemn the fact Sikhs have used intimidation and violence to force the closure of a play they find offensive because…
In my experience, very often the consequence of that [violent protests] is that the ideas of the play gain a wider audience than they would have had, had there not been such protests. That people feel this passionately about theatres is a good sign for our cultural life. It is a sign of a lively flourishing cultural life.
So British culture is better off because rioters have forced the closure of a play they disagreed with? Britain is clearly governed by people who are either immoral or demented or both.
But I am curious… would the ‘minister for race equality’ have thought it an equally healthy sign that British theatre is alive and well if a mob of angry white Scotsmen has stormed the theatre, smashed windows and forced the plays to close because they found something in the works of a Sikh playwright offensive?
Well given that Fiona Mactaggart is the ‘minister for race equality’, I guess she would take the view that all races are equally permitted to use violence to prevent freedom of expression, right? Right?
I mean, the races would hardly be equal if only when Sikhs riot is was “a sign of a lively flourishing cultural life”.
Doesn’t gratutitous violence and general thuggery form a large part of British ‘culture’, along with binge drinking, petty larceny, home invasion, etc. etc. etc?
Seems it is now acknowledged to be so, even by our ‘betters’.
Strange how they are now also, overly aware of the ‘oxygen of publicity’, a shame they weren’t so aware when the IRA was in full cry…
I’m glad you noticed this highly peculiar item, Perry, because I caught it, too.
Fiona McTaggart tells us she has noticed many times that if a performance gets condemned, it attracts publicity (no!) and ends up having the unexpected consequence of enjoying larger audiences. No one can fault this Scotswoman for acuity.
These passive comments strike me as strange, though. She fears to condemn, of course, because immigrants are at fault. If it were British indigenes, she’d be plastered all over the British media reading tight-lipped little lectures about ‘tolerance’.
In addition, most of what she had to say was terminally stupid, even as she was trying to back-and-fill.
But enough of Fiona! I made the point on a thread below, and welcome a chance to make it again, higher up: I do not believe it was Sikhs who threatened this playwright’s life.
Two possibilities: Max Clifford, or a clone, is involved and slipped her in as a passenger on the grim train that Hirsi Ali rides daily. Which would be foul beyond belief.
Or, the Sikhs are not the prime offendees, in the sense that their outrage may have been spontaneous but would have dissolved fairly quickly because they are eminently reasonable and accommodating individuals. I don’t mean they’d have shrugged and let it go, but I think they would have kept the outrage within their own community and wouldn’t have demeaned themselves and their religion in public this way.
I think the Muslims, realising that they are getting a bit of a reputation as troublemakers, and that threatening people with freelance death penalties is beginning to backfire, orchestrated some of this. The Sikhs were genuine offended (which is too bad; but we’re all offended by something) but Muslim groups who want to diffuse the blame for aggressively trying to impose their religion on others were quick to spot an opportunity.
I believe, if this were investigated, which it most assuredly will not be, it would be found that the Sikhs, while perhaps being the instigators of the original protest, were not the ones who escalated it into violence, and were most assuredly not the ones behind death threats to the playwright. The Muslims are trying to say, “Look! It’s not just us!” When, in fact, it is just them.
Some are clearly more equal than others.
Doesn’t gratutitous violence and general thuggery form a large part of British ‘culture’, along with binge drinking, petty larceny, home invasion, etc. etc. etc?
Oh course it does Ernest but now we can get an Arts Council grant for improving the culture.
Its about time the contribution working class culture makes to society was properly acknowledged
There is another factor at play here though. Fiona MacTaggart (who incidentally is a former director of Liberty!) is MP for Slough, a town with a large Sikh population. I think that a better explanation may be that she is merely a grubby political opportunist trying to secure votes for next May.
This is the text of the email I sent the Today programme upon hearing this most bizarre of interviews :-
Can I thus assume Ms. McTaggart considers “freedom of speech” to include the inalienable right to silence the free speech of others?
Verity – Do you have anything to back up your claims that it was actually moslems who were causing the disturbances, presumably dressed up in turbans and with big stick on beards, or are you just a cretin?
Christopher, If you’ll go down the corridor and turn right, you’ll find the room for remedial reading skills.
I could not have made it plainer that I suspect that Muslim lobbying groups are behind this because this type of hysterical, ill-considered and vicious behaviour is out of character for Sikhs. Sikhs traditionally have a high regard for the rights of others.
It may be that the ones (young men – traditionally the silliest people on the planet) who were barracking the theatre were genuine Sikhs, but someone got them fired up and encouraged them to behave violently.
Sikhs do not issue death threats against people with whom they don’t agree. Muslims do. To me, it is absolutely inconceivable that Sikhs threatened to murder or, to use the popular parlance of the Muslim set, “execute” this woman. They don’t believe in killing people to shut them up, or punish them.
I believe the Muslims are aware that they have earned a reputation for irrationality, bigotry and violence and, I repeat, I suspect they are trying to make common cause with the Sikhs in order to deflect some of the opprobium that is directed at them. “See? No minority is safe from oppression in Britain. Look at the poor Sikhs!”
I wish we had some Sikhs commenting here because I would like to read their thoughts. Does anyone know of a blog run by a British Sikh?
You all are in trouble! Perry’s right. I can smell the rot from over here. You have lost you freedom of speech and expression and no one will take a stand to protect it. Ms. Mactaggart certainly displayed utter disdain for it by painting the matter as a money making publicity stunt instead of what it was. She could have skillfully issued a carefully crafted condemnation on violence to stifle free speech. Trivializing it will only prolong the day when Britain will explode because everyone will become offended. Mr. Rai, Sikh Human Rights Group director, said it all, “Thank God thirty years on we have become more civilised.” How much more civility can you take?
And now your kin in Oz have just convicted two Christian Pastors for religious vilification. Judge Michael Higgins found Daniel Scott offended by quoting the Koran in a way that got “a response from the audience at various times in the form of….laughter (Boo-Hiss). The charges were, of course, brought up by the “mortified” Islamic Council.
What happened that you allowed your so-called “betters” to curtail free speech in such a manner? Do they think you mindless idiots who cannot exercise (any) judgment were you to hear an offensive comment but would clamor with agreement and immediately morph into bigots? How insulting and demeaning.
Is that famous English phase “F*CK OFF” now outlawed too? I’ll ask again, how much more civility can you take? You’ve come along way in 30 year.
I commented in the earlier post (on this incident) about the situation in general.
However, I’d just like to say in this thread that I completely agree with you. There was *no excuse* for the violence, and it completely ruined the cause for the rest of the Sikhs demonstrating.
Many Sikh leaders have come around in recent days to condemn the violence.
It’d be perfectly fine for a cabinet member to condemn the violence, however, its really not neccesary. It would probably escalate the situation or make it seem worse than it really was.
Having said that.. I think your post was more about pointing out political cowardice than it was about anything else.
It’d be tough for any politician to SEEM as if they were condemning an entire group.
So your argument is, it wasn’t Sikhs protesting against a play that offended certain Sikh sensibilities; it was Moslems. We know this because, notwithstanding the total lack of any evidence, it is a cultural characteristic of Moslems to engage in violent protest, but not of Sikhs. I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds this line of reasoning as dumb as it is unpleasant.
Your observation that Sikhs “don’t believe in killing people to shut them up, or punish them”. will no doubt be as great a relief to the familiy of the late Indira Ghandi as it will to the relatives of the late passangers of the Air India flight which left Toronto on 23 june 1985.
Christopher Price, Wet your forefinger and follow these words very carefully, forming them with your mouth if that helps your comprehension: I posited a theory.
I made no claims that Moslems were in on this. I said going by the evidence and by history, it would not surprise me.
The are right about the assassination of Indira Gandhi and the Air India flight. These two incidents in the entire world in 30 years were aberrant and do not reflect on Sikhs in general. Test and compare.