Its is not often that you see one of the country’s top opinion-formers picking his nose. As I rounded the corner opposite the pub, I was greeted by the sight of Ebenezer, the celebrated blogger, raising his stubby finger towards his nostril. As it entered the nose, he gave his whole hand an expert twist, as if he were operating a corkscrew. He grimaced as something was levered loose, which he pulled out and began rolling between his thumb and his forefinger.
Meanwhile, his other hand was perched over the keyboard of his laptop, his fingers furiously typing.
His eyes were distracted from the screen as I approached, which put an end to his trowelling. He let his non-keyboard hand flop down below his thigh, and I percieved him flick something out onto the pavement by his tiny table. Then he stood up, and offered the hand in greeting.
I may have paused for a spit-second before I shook it, but I don’t think he noticed.
Ebenezer sighed in mock exasperation. “At last!”
I smiled, and protested. “Not my fault, I left the flat an hour ago. They’re working on the Northern line so I had to get a bus.”
He played along. “Well, you should have known. There’s an app for that, yeah?” He waved his nose-picking hand at the metal chair opposite his, and sat down.
There was half a free-sheet newspaper splayed across the seat. Upside down, the new Prime Minister’s gurning face looked back at me. I picked it up and chucked it onto the ground, somewhere near where the bogey had probably landed.
Then I sat down and placed my iPhone carefully on the table. Ebenezer rolled his eyes at me. “What are you drinking?” he said. I could see he had a half-finished pint of some kind of dark ale on the go, leaned up against his laptop.
“I’ll probably just have a coffee for the moment,” I said. I stood up with the idea of ordering, but a waitress had clocked me and was already striding over. She was bursting out of a tight white shirt and had one of those black ties with a huge knot sitting over the centre of her chest.
When I ordered myself a decaf latte, Ebenezer let out an audible snort, and shook his head. The girl bit her lip to suppress a smile, then disappeared inside.
“That knot must have been, like, a quadruple windsor or something” he said when she was out of view.
I decided to change the subject. “What are you working on?”
“Just a blog. But not for the main blog, though. Just my blog. Its about Dave.”
I nodded solemnly. Dave was dead.
Continue reading
Page 180 of 328
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.
Last Friday, British theatre took a small step in the direction of free speech. At the Soho Theatre, in the heart of London’s west end, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s Behzti was performed in the UK for the first time since it was controversially cancelled in 2004.
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
Stephen Fry’s long article on who he will vote for, and why, reminds me of David Foster Wallace… in tone, topic and structure.
In a rant about the Gillian Duffy thing, Mr E complains about a bit of political shorthand:
I’m sure I can’t be the only one, by the way, who is tired of seeing the suffix “-gate” attached to every minor flap or scandal everywhere in the world every day.
I’ll second that. For a “gate” I think the scandal needs, at the very least, a bit of actual illegality and an attempt at cover-up, neither of which were present during Mr Brown’s unfortunate Wednesday.
The tendency to ‘gate’ things stems from the need to refer to a set of contiguous events in one catch-all term. For this, I prefer just using the hashtag within a normal bit of prose. That way, for example #RIPMichaelJackson refers not only to the death of a popstar, but the crowd reaction and media commentary. Same goes for #IranElection and #LeadersDebates.
Let’s start at the end: I think Cameron won this one. He looked much more confident than in previous debates, and seemed on the front foot in the back-and-forth. His soundbite about the “confusion” between goverment and economy was a new idea since last week’s debate (though variations on this theme have been on Tory posters for a couple of years) and was craftily put, the sort of thing that might persuade undecideds, rather than a preach to the choir. It is not a truism by any means, but Brown failed to muster comparable rhetoric to fight back.
Cameron also had very strong rhetoric when he spoke about “saving £1 in every £100 spent”. He suggested that this could mean saving on a local council’s glossy brochure, a highly dubious claim (do authorities with a £1bn budget really spend £10 million on communications?) but he nevertheless sounded credible.
Clegg looked beleageured in the first 10 minutes, but came into his own on the question about manufacturing. His Sheffield constituency brings him a certain credibility. He began by raising the need for growing the green industries – Clegg has always been the first to mention the environment, and it is a noteworthy difference between him and the other two men. As in the previous debates, he looked strongest when under attack on his illegal-immigration amnesty policy. It is humane and pragmatic and both Tories and Labour look ‘nasty’ when they belittle it.
Oh yeah: I made a prediction earlier, which turned out to be correct:
At no point in #LeadersDebates has anyone sunk to tabloid level. So I predict #Bigotgate will not be mentioned tonight.
Brown excelled when he was speaking like a Chancellor of the Exchequer. If ever there was a walking example of the Peter Principle, Brown is it. With the housing question, Brown gave a lengthy four point answer on building societies, and was clearly enjoying himself.
Overall, I think these debates have harmed the Labour campaign. How could they not? Brown is fighting the election on a 13-year record, and each and every question in these debates is on a problem that has not yet been solved. This stuctural handicap was most stark during Brown’s “no life on the dole, that’s my policy” soundbite. Cameron threw that right back at him, and many Labour party members would have let slip a small nod in agreent with the Conservative leader. A little later, Brown mentioned NEETs, and Cameron again easily pinned failures on the Prime Minister’s collar.
It’s no great insight that the debates have been a boon for Clegg, who has been the most talked about politician this past fortnight. Ultimately, the Lib Dem leader has looked comfortable and credible alongside the other two – but can you imagine the debates with Sir Menzies Campbell in his stead?
The BBC turned in the best production of the three broadcasters. We saw an uncluttered set design and an equally sparse screen. Much less claustrophobic. The only weird element was the slowly changing screen colour, which was a distraction, but forgivable. Dimbleby, a veteran of Question Time (as well as, incidentally, the Bullingdon Club) made one or two interventions which were shrewd and kept the conversation moving.
This is a great development in British politics. The rise of Clegg could, and should, deliver a hung parliament, which in turn should result in electoral reform. More political engagement will be the result.