After serious edits (namely the country name), the play Pusswedilla 3 is being allowed to run. The reason the censor board, uh, censored it in the first place? According to Director Feroze Kamardeen:
“The local censor board has unanimously voted to deny a Public Performance License for Pusswedilla Part 3. Reasons given are that it deals with Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan Politicians and institutions… Nice to know that we live in a country where our freedoms are still respected…”
How did they get around the censor board? By renaming the country Arsik.
So, the Censor Board looks like they will relent but only after a huge change had to be done in the script of Puss 3.. His Glorious Honourable Excellency Chaminda Pusswedilla is now the Lokka of ARSIK LAND…The Censor Board don’t like any mention of our beloved homeland.. So, everyone, WELCOME TO ARSIK LAND!!!
Madness. Sri Lanka and its politics should certainly be dealt with by theatre. The fact that the censor board is censoring plays for this is dumb, and I don’t think we need to have a censor board at all. Welcome to Arsik Land.
Hold on. A play can be censored? Does not compute.
Relevant article on (self)censorship in the UK’s theatres for comparison:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-features/7572604/Censorship-in-the-theatre.html
They have to submit scripts methinks. Apparently the UK just censored The Daily Show for showing Parliament proceedings and making fun of it, which apparently you can’t do.
Aye, an anachronistic fall out from when they agreed to televise parliamentary proceedings. Not many were aware if it until it was higlighted by the Daily Show not being, well, shown.
The content isn’t censored, the context is. Odd.
The board is under Def Min now.
I think ‘always breakdown’ faced a similar problem when i was first brought up. There is law in this country against directly satirizing political & judicial institutions.
Just to clarify for those not familiar with the law in the UK:
1) You cannot use the actual TV footage of parliamentary proceedings without the ultimate permission of parliament because parliament holds a copyright on the video. This differs from the US where there is not copyright in government produced works AND there is an exemption for satire. UK copyright law is as ludicrous as UK libel law.
2) The other article is not about government imposed censorship, but about the failure of the police to provide adequate protection to people who put on plays that upset groups that threaten to turn violent.
The Sri Lankan law appears to be based on the old British law, and is similar to British Law on films.
In the UK films are censored by a government appointed body, but plays (and books, and newspapers, etc.) are not. Websites are informally censored through a “volantary” arrangement with the major ISPs.
I remember needing a public performance license even to stage school plays… wonder if it is still a requirement?