A woman excreting and Holocaust denial are allowable on stage. Child rape is not

So, when was the last time you saw something really offensive at the theatre? Was it Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti's Behzti, closed following violent protests outside the Birmingham Rep? Was it Julian Clary in panto? Was it Murder in the Cathedral? (Which, as some wag reminded us, is not Murder in the Cathedral Gift Shop.) We were discussing theatre's right to offend at the Soho Theatre in London, a venue that has had its fair share of edgy drama. As one of the speakers pointed out, the room was packed with "woolly liberals" and people who admitted they would go to the wall for the right to freedom of speech. But is that right always worth defending? And how far does freedom of speech go anyway? Are we, asked the associate director of the Birmingham Rep, living in a "genuinely free, pluralist society"?

Not really. As Nick Cohen said, every time BBC Radio 4's Today programme considers inviting him on to debate some topic, a researcher calls him the previous night and "tests" whether he is going to say the "right" thing. If he is not, he isn't allowed on air. Is that censorship? "If I write a play that is not daring, or shocking, or sensational," commented the playwright Rachel Wagstaff, "I know I am less likely to win funding for it." Is that censorship? In effect, is subsidised theatre doing a Today programme on us all, espousing a certain viewpoint and squashing everyone else? Dominic Cavendish, the Telegraph's deputy theatre critic, admitted that on the opening night of Behzti, he was reviewing Bonnie Langford in panto. "No one knew it was going to be so inflammatory," he said. "It wasn't on the radar."

Even though the government is heading towards moral legislation on entertainment, making it illegal on stage to crack a joke about religion, it was suggested that theatre should in effect operate in a moral vacuum. Because if you protect the "rights" of one group against an "offensive" piece of theatre, you deny another group the freedom of expression. As a participant in the debate suggested, a play defending the rights of Sikh fundamentalists might be seen as a piece of invective against the rights of, say, British Asian women.

"Multiculturalism has let a huge rabbit out of the bag," said someone from the floor. And don't look to the multicultural community to help you find your way out of the moral maze. Munira Mirza, a researcher from Kent University, poured scorn on the notion of the community "voice", suggesting that community spokespeople were usually self-appointed busybodies who represent no one.

"So what would you allow on stage?" asked an audience member. He suggested three scenarios: a play showing a woman excreting on stage; a play denying that the Holocaust existed; and a play showing the rape of a child. The third, being illegal, was dismissed, but the first and second were deemed allowable, though whether they would prove a great night out was a moot point. Someone at the back stood up. "I don't know why we're bothering with all this. Theatre is a minority art form, like poetry. If we were talking about television and cinema, fair enough. But who goes to the theatre, other than Guardian readers?" At which point the associate director of the Birmingham Rep civilly reminded him of the urban violence at his theatre that had kicked off the debate in the first place.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website