While everyone else has been banging on about the election, I’ve been banging on about free speech.  Here’s a review that was commissioned for Index on Censorship and cross-posted at Comment is Free, so choose your forum for comments.  As before, I’ll post a selection of CiF comments on this blog in due course.

Let us be clear: this was no great stride for freedom, more an anxious shuffle. The performance was a rehearsed reading, not a full production, and received no publicity whatsoever. It was completely absent from the theatre’s website, and was only advertised to those who had been to see Behud, Bhatti’s most recent play. Buying a ticket felt a little like purchasing bootleg liquor from under the counter, and the atmosphere in the auditorium was, I imagine, how dissidents must have felt in the 1640s, when religious puritans closed the theatres and drama was performed illegally. Proper free speech has to be more open than this.

However, at the start of the performance, it became clear just how necessary and important this toddler’s step was to those who lived through the panicked, abrupt cancellation of 2004. I was surprised to hear Janet Steel, the director of the original production, say that she “thought this day would never come.” To an outsider, this modest reading was hardly radical. But to those who were threatened, who witnessed the picket lines first-hand, it is as if the cancellation happened yesterday. The first impressive thing about Friday’s reading was how many of the original cast had turned out to revive the script.

The performance revealed just how essential it is to the piece that it is set in a gurdwara. The rapist, Mr Sandhu, has built the temple, and is responsible for extending it. His office is his lair, and he derives his power over the other characters when he is in it. Choose any other setting (as some have suggested) and the key dynamic simply doesn’t work.

Behzti is often referred to as “that Sikh play”, a phrase which suggests a comparison with “The Scottish Play” (indeed, it has a lot in common with Macbeth, including a heightened realism and off-stage murders). This label suggests that it is for the Sikh community alone to determine its worth and relevance. This is a mistake – sexual abuse is, sadly, universal. For example, scenes from Behzti were mirrored in Two Women, which has just finished a run at the Theatre Royal, Stratford East. In that play, too, we see the complicity of women in the perpetuation of the abuse cycle. And we all know that child abuse and even murder within a church setting is a long established theme for drama. Behzti is a visceral play that the British public, all of us, deserves to see.

Six years after its abortive first production, Behzti still feels current and relevant. The actors turned in a robust delivery with very little time to rehearse, as if they were picking up where they left off. They have reinforced the artistic case for a proper revival.

Over the past five and half years, all other barriers to a remount have also crumbled. The blasphemy argument is as incoherent now as it was then. Even in 2004, there was no consensus among Sikh commentators as to whether the play was an insult to the religion. Since then, the very idea that blasphemy is a reason for censorship has been discredited. After Behzti, controversies over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, and the protests surrounding Jerry Springer the Opera have tested the public’s patience on the issue of “offence”. Public opinion is now firmly against censoring art for religious reasons, and it is now broadly accepted that faith remains strong even when religion is criticised. Even the hotheads who might disagree in principle know that, in practice, peaceful protest and counter-speech are more effective than threats. The violent demonstrations outside the Birmingham Rep are a thing of the past.

Moreover, the police have shown unequivocally that they are prepared to guarantee the safety of the theatregoers at controversial performances. For Behud in Coventry, the West Midlands police force took this issue extremely seriously, and allocated their staff accordingly, at no charge to the theatre. They have offered to do the same for future controversial productions.

Most importantly, Bhatti herself is positive about a revival of Behzti. In past years, she was (understandably) reticent about new productions. But on Friday evening she said to me that she “would love to see a new production”.

For too long, the British theatre community has been embarrassed by the Behzti affair. Its response to the crisis was positive but far too slow. Half a decade later, theatre directors can no longer wish the play into obscurity – its continued censorship is a boil that must now be lanced. The only barrier that now remains is the British theatre community itself, which needs to purge itself of the cowardly and ignorant assumption that the play is still “off limits”.

No more of this apathy. Let it be known that, as of last Friday, this excuse of last resort has been demolished. Behzti is no longer taboo. It can be performed, properly and publicly. What are we waiting for?

Behzti, a play about sex abuse and murder in a Sikh temple, was cancelled in 2004 after the Sikh community stormed the theatre. Photograph: Darren Staples/Reuters

Here’s another piece I have just had published at Comment is Free…  Later, I will publish a selection of comments I’ve received, and try and respond as best I can.

After the article was published, I and the Guardian were contacted by lawyers for Khalid Bin Mafouz.  I had incorrectly stated that the Sheikh sought to have damages awarded in the USA, but this was not correct.  It was the fear that he would seek damages, which promoted US legislators to action.  You can see the correction made, below.

On Monday, the US House of Representatives passed a bill designed to protect American citizens (and others within its jurisdiction) from the effect of libel judgments handed down by the British high court. The US Senate will now consider the legislation.

The bill erects a legal barricade for Americans against the growing problem of “libel tourism”, the phenomenon whereby foreigners sue each other in British courts, sometimes on the most spurious of grounds.

When the concept of a “gentleman’s good reputation”, devised in the 18th century to avoid the problem of duels, is applied uncritically in the globalised and connected 21st century, Her Majesty’s judges are cornered into handing down rulings which amaze her subjects.

We’ve learned that a Ukrainian businessman can sue a Ukrainian news organisation in the British courts, over an article written in Ukranian on a website, all because that site may be viewed in the UK. We find that an Icelandic investment bank can use all the resources of the British system to sue a Danish newspaper over articles published in Denmark.

With laws stacked overwhelmingly in favour of the claimant, the UK has become the jurisdiction of choice for anyone wishing to silence or suppress a journalist working anywhere in the world. We have unwittingly allowed our courts to become an international libel tribunal, and free speech is suffering as a result.

But no longer for Americans. Ever the exceptionalists, they are acting to ensure that at least their investigative journalists are protected. The measures enacted, first by the state of New York and now mirrored at a federal level, seek to end the principle of comity, a legal reciprocity whereby libel damages awarded in the UK can be enforced in the US.

The New York laws were inspired by the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld, an academic who was sued in Britain by Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz over claims made in her book Funding Evil. The book was published in the USA in 2004, but 23 copies had found their way onto British soil, via websites such as Amazon.com. She was therefore sued in the UK. When the British courts ruled against Ehrenfeld, Bin Mahfouz sought to have his award for damages enforced in the state of New York. The British courts ruled against Ehrenfeld. It was this act that the American courts found “repugnant”, because in the US, the claims made in Funding Evil were protected by the first amendment.

Why does this matter? First, it signals a sharp divergence in the legal traditions of two countries with strong, shared values. There is no doubting that the US’s approach to human rights is both flawed and inconsistent, but in the case of the freedom to write, our American cousins have chosen a much more open and democratic approach. When the principle of comity is rendered void, yet another sinew of our already strained “special relationship” is severed.

Worse yet, the bill just approved by the House of Representatives has been branded the “libel terrorism bill”. As we found last year when the government froze the assets of Icelandic Banks, calling a friendly country a “terrorist” – even just as rhetoric, or hyperbole – usually provokes some sort of grave diplomatic incident. And yet, American politicians are doing just this. Our legal system is slowly becoming utterly discredited abroad.

The continued passage of this bill must be a clarion call to our own legislators. Reform is long overdue – libel tourism in its current form has existed at least as long as the Labour government. Unfortunately, it is only in this parliamentary session that the eyes of British politicians come to focus on the problem.

The next report of the culture, media and sport select committee, due later this summer, will examine the problem. Committee members such as Paul Farrelly (Labour), Philip Davies and Chairman John Whittingdale (both Conservative) clearly understand what is at stake. However, in recent evidence to the committee, the justice minister Jack Straw said he was “yet to be convinced there was a significant problem”.

To campaigners witnessing the creation of hostile laws in the US Congress, Straw’s view is surprising and disconcerting. We must hope that the CMS select committee can assemble enough evidence to change his mind, and quickly. The publication of their report cannot come soon enough.

perklet: What you’re really asking is, “How do I deal with someone who insults my imaginary friend?”

and

Happytobeasocialist: Who is insulting them? I find religions and their reactionary, bigoted, backward, and misogynistic beliefs offensive. So where is my redress?

In many cases, it seemed as if the commentators were criticising me for being too religious, or for supporting religious defamation – which of course I don’t.  I was, however, trying to empathise with the religious, which seemed to sow confusion.

This from ishouldapologise was more substantial.

Yes, point taken. But, in fact if you had been a little more awake Robert Sharp, and as on your toes as you imply, then  you would know and refer to the many spin off Guardian blogs that have been created to do precisely what you say. To disagree with things that were said on the Guardian and to express themselves the way they feel like doing so.

Google is your friend.

Well, yes and no.  There are many projects like Islam is Peace which are online attempts to counter negative propaganda.  But in my travels around the web I couldn’t find anything to match Theatre J for really grabbing the offensive thing and creating with it.  My point was not so much that people should use the web, but rather, they should respond in the same medium as the offending piece.  So, a theatrical response to Behzti, for example.  If there are examples out there, I couldn’t find the right search terms on Google to harvest them, and would welcome further examples.

Later, imogenblack offers this:

Its just dawned on me that this guy is encouraging extreemists to use the net to air thier views… its hillarious… drivel, but hillarious.

Not quite, Imogen.  In the first instance, I am encouraging extremists to use the net to air their views, but only as an alternative to legislating against freedom of speech.  I think this is pretty uncontroversial, but its a point needs airing.

Second, I’m not really talking to the extremists, who (let’s be honest) are not really interested in freedom of expression, on the net or otherwise.  I am talking to more moderate adherents.  To repeat a point I made in the comments at CiF, its possible to be religious, to be offended and distressed by certain “denigration of religious persons” and yet still engage with the insult in some non-violent, constructive way.  To the commenters at CiF, it seems, this point is lost: For them, to be religious is by definition to be an extremist and an unworthy partner in dialogue.  I don’t share that point of view, for both idealistic and practical reasons.

On reflection, I think my main mistake in the post was not to elaborate on this:

However, when religion comes under attack, the alienation and marginalisation felt by believers is real. How can they achieve redress for a perceived offence, without resorting to censorship, or its kid brother, the boycott?

I think the word ‘perceived’ does the heavy lifting here, but that may have been lost in the sea of words.  When I talk of “redress”, I am not advocating that the faith groups be somehow compensated for the defamation of their religion.  That way, madness and intolerance lies.  Rather, I just mean a form of psychological redress.  A catharsis.  A satisfying opportunity to speak out, talk back, Have Your Say.  If we are going to mock and insult religion, then the least we can do is to grant those who are hurt by our words a platform to say “I am upset by what you say, and here’s why.”  If we do not see that as valuable, then we are no better than those who suppress freedom of expression in the name of their religion.

Here’s a post I’ve just had published over at Comment is Free.  Later, I will post a selection of the comments I’ve received there.

Credit where its due: The Way of the Blogs is hardly a new idea.  It was much discussed back in the ’04 when people in the UK were starting to take notice of online debate.  More recently, it was discussed at one of English PEN’s round-tables that we held as part of our ongoing inquiry into UK libel laws.

Here in the UK, English PEN’s No Offence campaign in 2005 successfully ensured that religious defamation laws remained off the statute books, and that blasphemy laws are a thing of the past (thank God). Such laws are bad for freedom of expression, of course, but in seeking to shield adherents from criticism of their faith, they ultimately weaken religion, too.

However, when religion comes under attack, the alienation and marginalisation felt by believers is real. How can they achieve redress for a perceived offence, without resorting to censorship, or its kid brother, the boycott?

I think there is a lesson to be learnt from blogs. Despite the robust nature of much of the debate online, I do perceive a sort of online Omerta, a Way of the Blogs. This states that if you have been offended or disrespected online, you can always fight your corner by setting up a counter-blog somewhere else. The idea is that you do not attempt to suppress the offensive material, legally or otherwise, but instead use the same medium to counter and debunk it.

Offline, a recent example from the US, shows this spirit in action. The Jewish organisation Theatre J, based in Washington DC, has been staging readings of Caryl Churchill’s controversial Seven Jewish Children, despite many people branding the play anti-semitic (Comment is Free has already discussed this point at length). Director Ari Roth says he doesn’t endorse the play, but feels the playwright’s language has some resonance: “So many of the lines resonate not with the language of hate, but with the language of perception.”

Roth denies that he is engaging in a form of self-flagellation, because Theatre J’s staging was not done so uncritically. He commissioned two new pieces that engage with Churchill’s text, entitled Seven Palestinian Children and The Eighth Child. Ultimately, what Theatre J has done is to appropriate Churchill’s play. They have mirrored its style in new works, subverting it in order to advance an alternative world view. The quick and impromptu way they have done so seems to me to be very much a 21st century act, reminiscent of the mash-ups, parodies and rebuttals at which internet culture excels. Not so different from The Way of the Blogs after all.

So, staging someone’s play, singing their song, or telling their story, is not necessarily an act of endorsement. Sometimes it can be a broadside attack on a particular orthodoxy. Appropriation and mutilation of art is an act of rebellion, a well-established weapon of the disenfranchised. To give two other examples: I am reminded of Angela Carter’s feminist reworking of traditional fairy tales; and the sampling and looping that is an inherent feature of urban music such as hip-hop. Those who found Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s Behzti offensive, or those who were upset by Jyllands-Posten’s provocative Mohammed cartoons, could and should have responded in a similar manner. New digital technology makes this cheap and easy.

But why engage? Why should religious communities have to dignify such attacks from a secular majority that is intent on insulting them at every turn? The answer is simple: art and culture evolves through conflict. Failure to engage leads a culture to stagnation, irrelevance, and finally, death. Religious defamation laws will strangle the very communities they seek to protect. Only raw and offensive free expression can offer salvation.

(Comment at Comment is Free)