Trumble, I know this is a Mozart opera - however, the severed heads 'are an addition by director Neuenfels to the 225-year-old opera'. Nobody's saying anything about banning Mozart's work, if that's what you meant. If that is not what you meant, I apologise for assuming so.
You hit the nail ! I also read ni newspaper that this is the reason. People in western world start to get scared about islam, because people are getting tired of the permanent whining of muslims about this and that !
Um, everyone has the right to 'whine', or express their disapproval. That's freedom of speech. However...
They are scared to become victims of bombings and killing.
Violence over words that cause offence are wrong, I agree with you there. There are certain people in the Muslim community who really have to understand that 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'. It's a sad state of affairs when plays are cancelled not out of respect, but out of fear. I mean, after 9/11, films and even videogames (Metal Gear Solid 2 to be precise) set in New York were altered so that they did not include footage of the Twin Towers - this was out of respect for the victims, rather than out of fear of violent retaliation.
I think people should discuss the issue rather than getting violent - Muslims do condemn the violence. In the case of this opera, quite frankly I didn't even know of its existence till I read about it a couple of days ago. Even then I was like 'why bother cancelling it? How many Muslims would go to the opera in the first place?'
I'm not saying it's
right to depict the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), it's just something to bear in mind. On the other hand, playing Devil's advocate of sorts, in the case of the opera, if the severed head in question is not essential to the plot (and frankly it seems to be simply artistic masturbation on the part of the director), would it still be violating freedom of speech to simply
remove that prop, yet keep the others intact? I.e. don't cancel the play, don't remove the entire scene in question, just remove the Muhammad prop. Would that have been reasonable, considering the violence it would most likely cause?
I do wonder if those arguing that freedom of speech has been violated would say the same thing for, say,
certain videogames being removed from shelves because of causing offence to religous groups. Or, to go one step further, the game
'Manhunt' being banned in New Zealand on grounds of violence.