Another step towards Eurabia?

toomevara

A performance of Mozart's Idomeneo, featuring a scene which shows the dismembered heads of Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed has been cancelled due to security concerns relating, not to offended christians or buddhists but surprise, surprise, you've guessed it, our thin skinned muslim friends.

Is this type of craven self censorship, unheard of only five years ago, handing a tacit victory to the foam flecked mullahs and their fellow travellers? Is this the thin end of the wedge, presaging the death of western, secular democracy.??..At what point will we say 'enough', and stand up for our values, or should I just pop down the local mosque and convert now and get it over with?

oscarBravo

I'm far from an opera buff, but - what the hell do the severed heads of Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed have to do with the cast, setting or story of Idomeneo?

aslantheslayer

Germany's conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel is fuming about it!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=407370&in_page_id=1811

Dave!

This is bloody ridiculous!!! gimme a ticket to that show! Any play that shows Muhammed's head rolling across the stage is a play I wanna see :mad:

pete

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm far from an opera buff, but - what the hell do the severed heads of Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed have to do with the cast, setting or story of Idomeneo?

Looks like the director (Hans Neuenfels) has form for this kind of "interpretation" of opera...

wikipedia, so it must be true.... wrote:

While being the show traditionally performed in theatres on New Year's Eve, Die Fledermaus has recently also seen more provocative productions, for example the one directed by Hans Neuenfels at the 2001 Salzburg Festival. With the action transposed into the 1920s, the ball at Orlofsky's metamorphoses into an orgy where decadent guests preferring cocaine to champagne meet some of the harbingers of Nazism — a place where any waltz immediately becomes a waltz into darkness. The scandal had been announced by artistic director Gérard Mortier, but nevertheless part of the audience reacted with fierce criticism. Among the critics was a 57-year-old general practitioner who, supported by Austria's authority on opera, Marcel Prawy, at least one tabloid, and the Austrian Freedom Party, sued the Salzburg Festival, demanding his money back. The ensuing trial triggered a heated debate on the state of the freedom of the arts in Austria.

Hobbes

Looks more like trying to start offending for offending sake (Almost The Aristocrats in design). To get advertising.

I'd be surprised that anyone complaining would normally watch mozart to begin with.

J.S. Pill

So I take it that the severed heads scene in this production of Idomeneo has never actually been performed before? Really does sound like an exercise in publicity seeking to me.

Anything that has to rely on such stunts is probably a crock of sh*t anyway (e.g. Jerry Springer: the opera).

Its only a matter of time before we hear of some company pulling an add from airing at the last minute due to fears that images of Muhammad enjoying an ice cold Pepsi whils't driving the brand new ford Mondeo and telling us about how Ocean Finance can consolidate your existing debts into one easy monthly payment might offend certain sectors of the core demographic.

You just can't buy publicity like that.

Kashkai

Whether the whole on/off opera affair was just a publicity stunt or not, my admiration is for the Iron Lady of Germany, Angela Merckel. About bloody time, a western leader had the guts to stand up for free speech.

Even after 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings, politicians in the west were quick off the blocks telling their citizens not to blame all muslims for these attacks. To hell with that, our so called leaders should have been spewing fire and brimstone about how we in the democratised world will never bow down to the demands of a desert superstition, aka islam and its fanatical followers. Even now, polls in the UK amongst muslims have shown that the majority of them believe 9/11 was right and the terrorist scum are martyrs. We have got to stop pandering to these people as it only encourages them.

I've no problem with people believing in whatever they want so long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. Therefore, if muslims don't like how we do things in the west, then go back to the desert and bow down to Mecca a 100 times a day if you wish, and leave the civilised world in peace.

toomevara

J.S. Pill wrote:

So I take it that the severed heads scene in this production of Idomeneo has never actually been performed before? Really does sound like an exercise in publicity seeking to me.

Was performed without incident five years ago, suddenly its an issue now?????

J.S. Pill wrote:

Anything that has to rely on such stunts is probably a crock of **** anway...

Irrelevant, the glory of western civilisation is that it supports the right of people to stage shameless acts of self promotion without fear of death at the hands of a bearded fanatic (at least it used to.)

J.S.Pill wrote:

You just can't buy publicity like that.

tell that to the terrified directors and cast who now fear for their safety and that of their loved ones. Mybe not all publicity is good publicity especially when it comes to our muslim brethren, just ask Theo Van Gogh.....oh that's right you cant because he was gutted in a Dutch park for having the temerity to play around with some verses of the koran and a naked female body......

marcsignal

DaveMcG wrote:

This is bloody ridiculous!!! gimme a ticket to that show! Any play that shows Muhammed's head rolling across the stage is a play I wanna see :mad:

well said, and i CANT WAIT for Salman Rushdie's new book :-)

toomevara

pete wrote:

Looks like the director (Hans Neuenfels) has form for this kind of "interpretation" of opera...

So what?? He can interpret an opera in any way he sees fit, he lives in a western secular, constitutional democracy, which guarantees artistic freedom of expression.

You may not agree with his vision but he's got every right to present it to the public without fear of having death, retribution or physical violence inflicted on him by retrogressive nutters who take their social and cultural cues from the 6th century. His 'form' as you put it, is neither here nor there.

Hobbes

toomevara wrote:

So what?? He can interpret an opera in any way he sees fit, he lives in a western secular, constitutional democracy, which guarantees artistic freedom of expression.

Let me know when you release your opera showing the you anally raping a child then we can talk about artistic freedom of expression.

Frederico

Prosperous Dave wrote:

Whether the whole on/off opera affair was just a publicity stunt or not, my admiration is for the Iron Lady of Germany, Angela Merckel. About bloody time, a western leader had the guts to stand up for free speech.

Even after 9/11, and the Madrid and London bombings, politicians in the west were quick off the blocks telling their citizens not to blame all muslims for these attacks. To hell with that, our so called leaders should have been spewing fire and brimstone about how we in the democratised world will never bow down to the demands of a desert superstition, aka islam and its fanatical followers. Even now, polls in the UK amongst muslims have shown that the majority of them believe 9/11 was right and the terrorist scum are martyrs. We have got to stop pandering to these people as it only encourages them.

I've no problem with people believing in whatever they want so long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. Therefore, if muslims don't like how we do things in the west, then go back to the desert and bow down to Mecca a 100 times a day if you wish, and leave the civilised world in peace.

YEAH! thats right! we should drive a big divide right between christianity and islam! because that will magically make them disappear over night.. oh no wait it won't, it will cause more anger and hate.. and you know what that leads too..

Maybe if we stopped our wars and meddling and oil grabbing we could spout this sorta stuff and have some backing for it.

toomevara

Hobbes wrote:

Let me know when you release your opera showing the you anally raping a child then we can talk about artistic freedom of expression.

I'll be sure to PM you....incidentally anal rape has been portrayed on stage in a number of different plays over the years, most notably in an Irish context, Brenton's 'Romans in Britain' which featured the anal rape of a celt by roman centurions as an allegory of the Northern ireland situation and Bhattu's Bezhti which featured a rape in a sikh temple.

No subject, imho, should be beyond the remit of artistic interpretation and artists, playwrights, actors etc... should be free to delve into these issues through their art. You (rather personally and unnecessarily if you don't mind me saying so) cite child abuse in your post as a case in which should be beyond the remit of artistic enquiry, if I understand the tenor of your message correctly. Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion. While you or I may find such an exercise distasteful, if we are serious about the tenets of freedom of speech, we must, to coin a phrase 'defend peoples rights unto death' to do it.

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

Maybe if we stopped our wars and meddling and oil grabbing we could spout this sorta stuff and have some backing for it.

What's this 'we' business? I certainly don't see the German acting community, or the Danish cartoon drawing fraternity, playing God in the Middle East or interefering with the oil markets.

Either way, they should have ran the play unless and until they were threatened. Hard to blame the muslim community when they did absolutely nothing, it was the show's own producers that pulled it. They sure got a nice amount of publicity now anyway.

RedPlanet

I think people are a bit wound up about religion these days.
It's poor form to throw fuel onto the fire.

I don't know if anybody else has noticed, but if you ever see footage of the WTC on fire during 9/11 these days, you never see the suicide jumpers.
I remember specifically seeing several people plunge to their deaths on the day.
Apparently that has been covered over.
It's kind of like censorship...hmm.
But nobody complains so.

Kashkai

Frederico wrote:

YEAH! thats right! we should drive a big divide right between christianity and islam! because that will magically make them disappear over night.. oh no wait it won't, it will cause more anger and hate.. and you know what that leads too..

Maybe if we stopped our wars and meddling and oil grabbing we could spout this sorta stuff and have some backing for it.

Its not the democratised secular west that gets all hot and heavy when their religion/belief/superstition (take your pick) is questioned.

When's the last time you saw westerners marching down a street burning an effigy of the Ayatollah and calling for death to the Islamists while firing AK47's into the air?

Why bother even attempting reconciliation between Christianity and the Islamists. They bloody well hate the western world, I know because I lived in Abu Dhabi for a while when I was working in the Middle East. The Islamic states in the middle east are the most intolerant places I ever had the misfortune to spend any time in. You have no right to voice any sort of opinion that may offend the locals especially when it comes to freedom of expression, women's rights and religion. There are no such restrictions on Muslims marching down streets in the western world spouting their hatred for the western world.

As for making war on the Islamists, I believe it was they who crashed planes into the twin towers, caused the London and Madrid bombings, tried to blow up ten planes flying across the Atlantic (foiled by good security) and have turned the simple act of flying into a nightmare.

I won't generalise as there must be sane people out there who would describe themselves as Muslims but my experience of Islamists is that they are at best horrendously intolerant of anything that they don't agree with and at worst - well I've already stated what they are capable of above.

Hobbes

toomevara wrote:

if we are serious about the tenets of freedom of speech, we must, to coin a phrase 'defend peoples rights unto death' to do it.

The freedom of speech speel is bollox. Its forever being touted up "They are stopping my freedom of speech". The freedom of speech is generally referring to the person vs the government. It is not the freedom to do what you like when you like.

Otherwise I should be allowed to artistically express myself by pooping on my pavement outside and smashing all my neighbours windows.

When's the last time you saw westerners marching down a street burning an effigy of the Ayatollah and calling for death to the Islamists while firing AK47's into the air?

The west just have a different way of doing the same thing tbh.

pete

toomevara wrote:

So what?? He can interpret an opera in any way he sees fit, he lives in a western secular, constitutional democracy, which guarantees artistic freedom of expression.

Subject to any obscenity, blasphemy or other public decency type laws, of course.

You may not agree with his vision but he's got every right to present it to the public without fear of having death, retribution or physical violence inflicted on him by retrogressive nutters who take their social and cultural cues from the 6th century.

Muslims have pretty strong views on representations of their prophet, and they're perfectly entitled to express these views in a western secular, constitutional democracy. Yet the strongest statement the Daily Mail could find was

Germany's Islamic Council, who welcomed the cancellation of the opera saying it 'could certainly offend Muslims'.

Nobody seems to know if there was any actual "threat" made. Best not man the battlements quite yet, eh?

toomevara

Hobbes wrote:

The freedom of speech is generally referring to the person vs the government. It is not the freedom to do what you like when you like.

Agreed, and of course, as another poster said, freedom of speech is tempered by the laws of the land (whether or not they too can contravene the right to freedom of speech is another days work!). However, in the case at hand, the producer/director et al have every right to stage their play without fear of violence. To disallow them to do so, because of some perceived or predicted slight to the practitioners of islam is bowing to the wishes of a small fanatical majority, and the absolute antithesis of western culture.

Hobbes wrote:

Otherwise I should be allowed to artistically express myself by pooping on my pavement outside and smashing all my neighbours windows.

No, because that's illegal....and also a fine example of reductio ad absurdo.

Hobbes wrote:

The west just have a different way of doing the same thing tbh.

Believe you me I'm no apologist for much of the depredations wrought by Western civilisation particularly in its fraught relations with the Islamic world and the islamic faith (largely borne of fear,ignorance and misunderstanding) but for me this issue i.e. freedom of speech and artistic expression is one on which we cannot budge. Indeed you could say I'm a fundamentalist on the issue.....

growler

pete wrote:

Subject to any obscenity, blasphemy or other public decency type laws, of course.

I don't think that art and acting are subject to the laws on obscenity or blasphemy, it sure ain't hard to find a movie that has obscene content, the very existence of "blasphemy" as a legal concept belongs in the middle ages. (do we even have blasphemy laws in europe?)


I don't mind people expressing their views by writing to the Daily Mail or ringing Gerry Ryan, but while that happens its lso accompanied by the burning effigies, threats etc. Maybe because they realise that no one pays any attention to petty whinges in the papers but will sit up and take notice if you threaten mass murder, not the most elegant appraoch to PR but one that unfortunately seems to be working well for the readily-offended muslims of the world.

I'd really like to see a counter demonstration by the non radical muslim majority that we are told exist and are not bothered by any of this stuff /reject islamic terrorism , waving placards saying "we're not bothered" , "do what ye want" etc.

J.S. Pill

toomevara wrote:

Was performed without incident five years ago, suddenly its an issue now?????

I was just asking the question mate.

My main point was about publicity but that doesn't mean I'm belitteling the whole clash of cultures issue - just focusing on a different aspect.

Now while the overall tone of my message was humorous it really wouldn't surprise me if some add men were to use this publicity mechanism in the near future. I reckon some band will try to put an image of Muhammad on an album cover sometime soon.

Watch this space

tallus

Prosperous Dave wrote:

Its not the democratised secular west that gets all hot and heavy when their religion/belief/superstition (take your pick) is questioned.

That statement is only relevant if you're willing to overlook violent terror groups such as the P.I.R.A. U.V.F. Red Brigade, Real IRA, Bader Meinhoff, (spelling ?)
ETA, The extreme christian right in the states, who murder doctors who perform abortions.
Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water, and frankly your views seem to be just as closeted and closed minded as the very people you are trying to discredit.

Dyr

The baader meinhof gang are an example of western religious extremism? You might want plug the hole in that idea before pointing out the leakage in other peoples arguments

tallus

Bambi wrote:

The baader meinhof gang are an example of western religious extremism? You might want plug the hole in that idea before pointing out the leakage in other peoples arguments

So you're saying they had no beliefs? I believe beliefs were quoted in the post, as well as religion and I quote "(take your pick)" I took my pick.

pete

growler wrote:

I don't think that art and acting are subject to the laws on obscenity or blasphemy, it sure ain't hard to find a movie that has obscene content, the very existence of "blasphemy" as a legal concept belongs in the middle ages. (do we even have blasphemy laws in europe?)

That question should probably be directed to the producers of the Jerry Springer opera...

Kashkai

tallus wrote:

That statement is only relevant if you're willing to overlook violent terror groups such as the P.I.R.A. U.V.F. Red Brigade, Real IRA, Bader Meinhoff, (spelling ?)
ETA, The extreme christian right in the states, who murder doctors who perform abortions.
Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water, and frankly your views seem to be just as closeted and closed minded as the very people you are trying to discredit.

And frankly you don't know me or you would understand that your statement couldn't be farther from the truth.

I hold no religious beliefs whatsover, I honestly cannot grasp how an adult human being can believe in fantasy tales of dying and rebirth into heaven surrounded by angels/virgins etc. However, I do believe that we all have a right to live our lives as we see fit so long as we don't harm anyone else. Therein lies my argument - the Islamists want to convert the world to their faith and those unbelievers who choose not to convert will be put to the sword. This is not a line from some 15th century king but from the mouth of an imam in Abu Dhabi during a conversation I had with him in 1993. They will not accept people like me who choose not to subscribe to a belief in a deity.

Similarly, I believe that all of the terrorist groups mentioned above are scum of the highest order who will kill and maim any who get in their way. I've taken the Shinners to task about the murder of Garda McCabe when they came canvassing on my doorstep. This is something I could do in this democracy of ours.

So I'm not closed minded my friend, just speaking as someone who's worked in the middle east and had to bite his tongue on numerous occasions or else I'd end up being picked up by the religious police for speaking my mind, which the Islamists won't allow if it goes against their beliefs

tallus

I have to admit that I do have problems with certain aspects of Islam, especially with regard to their treatment of women. I agree with you on the point of terror groups being scum of the earth. I just dont think it's limited to the muslim world.

Hobbes

Prosperous Dave wrote:

The Islamists want to convert the world to their faith and those unbelievers who choose not to convert will be put to the sword.

Thats a misconception. They don't want to convert the world to thier faith. If your not Muslim (or most any religion) your going to hell but thats pretty much a given.

All this "put to the sword" is BS there have been numerous instances throughout history and current day where Muslims live in harmony.

Lets try this as an example. How many times has a muslim in your lifetime come up to you and tried to convert you to thier religon?

Want to know how many times that has happened in my 36 years on this planet and numerous countries visted/lived in. Answer = 0. Now if I compare that to other religons, 1 time by scientologists, 2 by Mooneys (that I think they were), and numerous times by Mormons.

While I am sure there are fanatic muslims that would try this they are not even remotely the majority of the whole of Islam.

Kashkai

Hobbes wrote:

Thats a misconception. They don't want to convert the world to thier faith. If your not Muslim (or most any religion) your going to hell but thats pretty much a given.

All this "put to the sword" is BS there have been numerous instances throughout history and current day where Muslims live in harmony.

Lets try this as an example. How many times has a muslim in your lifetime come up to you and tried to convert you to thier religon?

Want to know how many times that has happened in my 36 years on this planet and numerous countries visted/lived in. Answer = 0. Now if I compare that to other religons, 1 time by scientologists, 2 by Mooneys (that I think they were), and numerous times by Mormons.

While I am sure there are fanatic muslims that would try this they are not even remotely the majority of the whole of Islam.

Please read my previous post - I lived in the middle east and on three occasions, I was preached to by imams about the virtues of their religions and asked if I'd consider proclaiming Allah as the one true God and Mohammed as his prophet. When I politely refused, the preaching became a sermon, which then became a fire and brimstone act and then the "non-believers will be put to the sword" routine. And this from an imam, one who is supposed to spreading that Islam is "a message of peace and love for mankind" - or else!!!

And as for the putting to the sword bit being BS - do you recall the beheadings of western hostages in Iraq that were broadcast over the net and the Al Jazeera network? In addition, Saudi Arabia does a nice line in public beheadings!!!

Belle Ende

Hobbes wrote:

They don't want to convert the world to thier faith.

They'd _HATE_ to invite infidels to Islam. They'd _HATE_ to see all the world being muslim. Yeah, right.

Hobbes wrote:

All this "put to the sword" is BS

Islam _loves_ gays/apostates/idol worshippers/dhimmis/satirists and it was spread by the prophet Mohammad and his successors like a troupe of smiling pied pipers of peace who painted rainbows and scattered flower petals where they travelled. Get real.