The competition between religions: why such 'representatives' should be paid less attention
10th February, 2005
by Sunny Hundal
Editor
Let me start off with a few recent quotes:
In case it isn't already obvious, competition has broken out between the religious elements of our society for the label of 'Most Sensitive'. Every time someone gets offended, it has become standard policy to complain that followers of other faiths are treated with more respect.
Within the Asian community this competition between religions, and sometimes even caste, is long established. But the brilliantly orchestrated campaign over Jerry Springer The Opera showed that Christians have happily also jumped on the bandwagon, catching the BBC by complete surprise at the time.
The furore over Behzti has undeniably raised the stakes and given religious hot-heads a dangerous precedent. Unsurprisingly, many Sikhs complained at the time that the arts establishment was less willing to offend Muslims.
Last week another example came when the Muslim Council of Britain, never one to hesitate at being offended, said it would be boycotting the 60th anniversary commemorations over Auschwitz unless it included people of other groups, including Palestinians. The chance to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the world in condemning such an atrocity, even point out parallels with the BNP, was royally scuppered. Instead they took out a gun, pointed it at their feet, and firmly pulled the trigger. Great move.
Instead of working to portray their religion as tolerant, liberal and understanding, the religious representatives of today demand ultra-sensitivity. If no one listens then all manner of comparisons get made and they complain of bias against their own faith.
As ever, there are two caveats here. Sometimes the complaint can be genuine and worth taking notice of. It is also the media's fault for only paying attention to religious groups when there is a controversy.
Nevertheless, it doesn't deny the fact that broadcasters, production companies and even theatre houses can fall into a trap of trying to keep the 'representatives' happy. In an environment where they're evidently competing with each other, this is a dangerous policy because there is no way back.
With Behzti for example, it gave the impression to those being consulted that they had editorial control over the final product. For news organisations it can mean bias in reporting. For young British Asians who want to tell their own stories through theatre, it can mean facing an environment where censorship is imposed on them by their own community.
Only in the last few years has mainstream British society woken up to the diversity of religion, culture, thought and tradition within the Asian community. This is being reflected on screen and no doubt mistakes have been made.
My point isn't that all the changes made to reflect diversity should be forgotten, or that religion should be avoided entirely. Neither is it to say that a consultation process isn't needed to reflect a character authentically.
The worry is that in the desire to be politically correct, British institutions end up listening only to highly vocal and organised religious groups. There is a tendency to assume they represent everyone in their respective communities.
Instead it's time that the same institutions, like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, the Arts Council and even those such as The Times stopped being lazy and found alternative voices. Or they will only have themselves to blame in the future.
Editor
Let me start off with a few recent quotes:
Stephen Green, Christian Voice's national director, admitting they had published private contact details of BBC staff prior to Jerry Springer The Opera screening: "It reflects that we have no confidence in the current channels of complaint.... The BBC would not have done this if it had been Muslims or Sikhs, but because we are Christians we are fair game."
Church of England Bishop, Michael Reid of Essex: "We are outraged that the BBC should use license fee payers' money to put on a show [Jerry Springer] that is highly offensive to Christians. It would not put programmes on that were insulting to Mohammed, Buddha or the Hindu gods but it thinks Christians are easy picking."
General secretary of the Hindu Forum, Ramesh Kallidai, over Coronation Street controversy: "This [apology] is totally inadequate. ITV seems to have a double standard. Would they show someone using a Koran as a weapon? Probably not."
Dr Abdul Bari, from the Muslim Council of Britain, over the British Council controversy: "We are, however, dismayed that the Telegraph Group have yet to take any action against the editor of the Sunday Telegraph. We are quite certain that had Mr Cummins written in the same sustained and repugnant terms about another minority, say the Jewish community, the Sunday Telegraph editor would have been dismissed from his position by now.
In case it isn't already obvious, competition has broken out between the religious elements of our society for the label of 'Most Sensitive'. Every time someone gets offended, it has become standard policy to complain that followers of other faiths are treated with more respect.Within the Asian community this competition between religions, and sometimes even caste, is long established. But the brilliantly orchestrated campaign over Jerry Springer The Opera showed that Christians have happily also jumped on the bandwagon, catching the BBC by complete surprise at the time.
The furore over Behzti has undeniably raised the stakes and given religious hot-heads a dangerous precedent. Unsurprisingly, many Sikhs complained at the time that the arts establishment was less willing to offend Muslims.
Last week another example came when the Muslim Council of Britain, never one to hesitate at being offended, said it would be boycotting the 60th anniversary commemorations over Auschwitz unless it included people of other groups, including Palestinians. The chance to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the world in condemning such an atrocity, even point out parallels with the BNP, was royally scuppered. Instead they took out a gun, pointed it at their feet, and firmly pulled the trigger. Great move.
Instead of working to portray their religion as tolerant, liberal and understanding, the religious representatives of today demand ultra-sensitivity. If no one listens then all manner of comparisons get made and they complain of bias against their own faith.
As ever, there are two caveats here. Sometimes the complaint can be genuine and worth taking notice of. It is also the media's fault for only paying attention to religious groups when there is a controversy.
Nevertheless, it doesn't deny the fact that broadcasters, production companies and even theatre houses can fall into a trap of trying to keep the 'representatives' happy. In an environment where they're evidently competing with each other, this is a dangerous policy because there is no way back.
With Behzti for example, it gave the impression to those being consulted that they had editorial control over the final product. For news organisations it can mean bias in reporting. For young British Asians who want to tell their own stories through theatre, it can mean facing an environment where censorship is imposed on them by their own community.
Only in the last few years has mainstream British society woken up to the diversity of religion, culture, thought and tradition within the Asian community. This is being reflected on screen and no doubt mistakes have been made.
My point isn't that all the changes made to reflect diversity should be forgotten, or that religion should be avoided entirely. Neither is it to say that a consultation process isn't needed to reflect a character authentically.
The worry is that in the desire to be politically correct, British institutions end up listening only to highly vocal and organised religious groups. There is a tendency to assume they represent everyone in their respective communities.
Instead it's time that the same institutions, like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, the Arts Council and even those such as The Times stopped being lazy and found alternative voices. Or they will only have themselves to blame in the future.
