sylvanian families terrorised by isis

[southeastastra]

\link{http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/sep/26/sylvanian-families-isis-freedom-of-expression-exhibition\here} have to say i find it bizarre they were banned from the passion of freedom exhibition.

[MissFitt68]

That's just bizarre

[hackmum]

They weren't banned, were they?

"It was removed from the Passion for Freedom exhibition at the Mall galleries after police raised concerns about the “potentially inflammatory content” of the work, informing the organisers that, if they went ahead with their plans to display it, they would have to pay £36,000 for security for the six-day show."

It's the police taking the piss, essentially.

[TheoriginalLEM]

I am glad it has been removed. That is not freedom of expression (which i think we have every right to) that is just inflammatory, publicity seeking shite (Like a lot of modern "art"). What is it trying to say - that Isis are threatening our naice way of life? or is it saying -oooh look at me, i dare to say what other people are scared of saying? please pay me lots of money for my talentless "art".

These sort of "displays" do more to damage freedom of speech than anything else.

[southeastastra]

how can it do damage to freedom of speech? :/

[hiddenhome2]

I quite like it

[EduCated]

The gallery chose to remove it because they don't want to pay the police the £36,000 it will cost to provide security.

Whether that is a realistic figure, I don't know, but I'm also not sure the police should provide extra security 'unfunded'. But then I do appreciate the freedom of expression stuff. So all in all, on the fence

[hiddenhome2]

Why would extra security be needed? Who could possibly kick off about it? It's just a wry observation. It's amusing and topical as well. What's not to like?

We're told that isis doesn't represent any religion or country and there are no isis members in this country, so who could possibly object?

[EduCated]

I presume the police believe it might attract problems, presumably from ISIS or those sympathetic to them.

How credible that is, not a clue!

[SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed]

I quite like it too. Very odd that the police would object when the exhibition had already been displayed elsewhere with no problems.

[MephistophelesApprentice]

So this is how free speech ends - not too dangerous, just too expensive...

[APlaceOnTheCouch]

I quite liked it and I don't really see how it's more inflammatory than the rest of the pieces.

[BlahBlahUsername]

Why would extra security be needed? Who could possibly kick off about it? It's just a wry observation. It's amusing and topical as well. What's not to like?

Why indeed. We must not display artworks that show ISIS killing innocent people, in case ISIS have their feelings hurt and turn up to kill innocent people.

[wickedlazy]

Quite worried they think something as simple as this piece of art would be a serious security risk. Or is it health and saftey planning gone overboard?

I like it btw. Thing it makes a simple but effective statement.

[wickedlazy]

*think

[noblegiraffe]

It's hardly like they've got a Sylvanian Mohammed is it? I could understand any concern if they did.

[hiddenhome2]

Freedom of both speech and expression being quietly eroded.

[hiddenhome2]

As an act of rebellion, I have it set as my wallpaper.

Isis are perfectly welcome to come and tell me what they think of me

[hackmum]

I like it too. It's funny yet sinister - as hiddenhome2 says, what's not to like?

It's not completely clear to me whether the organisers refused to include it without security or whether the police insisted that they would have to have security if they went ahead. Are the police allowed to do that?

[hiddenhome2]

I believe the police have a duty to protect citizens who are going about their business - in this case, setting up and displaying an art piece.

If it's deemed to be offensive, than what about the nudes in countless art galleries up and down the country? Are these galleries going to be targeted for displaying offensive art pieces?

[Dapplegrey1]

"If it's deemed to be offensive, than what about the nudes in countless art galleries up and down the country? Are these galleries going to be targeted for displaying offensive art pieces?"

It may well come to that, Hiddenhome.

[hiddenhome2]

It is coming to that

[EduCated]

It's a particularly hot topic at the moment due to the Prevent strategy from the government - lots of universities kicking up a stink about it, and its impact on academic freedom.

[seagreengirl]

I like it too, why shouldn't modern art be inflammatory, haven't we got enough vases of flowers already?

It actually really worries me that people are becoming too frightened to show things like this.

[EduCated]

Did you see that certain universities were 'named and shamed' a week or so back for hosting controversial speakers? I'm not surprised places are antsy about the controversial stuff, but because of the legislative situation/restrictions, rather than direct threats.

I may well be wrong!

[fourmummy]

Some very revealing comments here.
inflammatory - ???
We're told that isis doesn't represent any religion - Why don't we listen to what the terrorists are telling us - they hate anyone who is not 'like them', want to destroy in the name of Islam and Allah, and set up a Caliphate.

My theory is this: this is a form of benevolent racism. We see ourselves so much more superior and better developed than 'them' that we set ourselves up as experts, who know better than the subjects of our attention what is going on in their heads, that our Enlightenment, human rights and liberalism are so well developed that we must not apply these principles to these 'other' cultures - it'd be like taking sweets from a baby. Too easy. Note that this is uniquely Western sentiment. Other countries and cultures do not share this perspective. The thing is that this type of benevolent racism perpetuates the very thing it's trying to mitigate - inequality.