The NLU Delhi students who protested a stand-up comedy act by Abhish Mathew on campus, which attracted considerable media attention and controversy, have written a five-page open letter signed by 15 students and supporters defending their right to protest even if it disrupted the performer.
They also stated that while Mathew told them after the event that he had no idea that his jokes about domestic violence “would warrant such a strong response”, however, they said their protest provoked hostile reactions that left some feeling “personally unsafe”, after they were heckled and one protestor was physically pushed after the event.
However, they wrote that it was “heartening to see that the protest has generated dialogue, debate and introspection both within our University, and outside”:
A healthy and fruitful debate attended by large numbers took place within our campus three days after the protest. This is a small victory in pursuance of achieving our larger aim as a University, towards building a more inclusive campus where persons of all genders feel space.
We have reached out to Mathew for comment, who tweeted the day after the event: “If I made my jokes any cleaner, I'd have to sell it as hand sanitizer!”
The protestors recounted the events of 22 March in their open letter as follows:
Early in the show, Matthew cracked a joke on domestic violence, at which point, two women students who found the jokes to be extremely misogynistic, walked out, showing him the middle finger. The audience reacted with some tittering, and Abish Mathew fumbled momentarily, before resuming. The audience asked him to carry on and to ignore the protesters. In the mean time, a group of female students marched into the auditorium holding placards reading “Get Out, Sexist Pig”, and also used expletives such as ‘fuck off’. The auditorium erupted in shouts of “fuck you guys” and the protesters were booed and heckled by the audience members who demanded that the protestors either leave or move to the side. They eventually did move to the side of the auditorium, where they continued to hold their placards up and attempted to interrupt him. Abish was greeted by a standing ovation when he stated that he was an artist and recognized the right of the protesters, and subsequently when he ended his show by stating he had overstayed his welcome…
The jokes cracked pertained to domestic violence, women’s physical appearance and sexual (un)attractiveness, and reiterated traits that are traditionally ascribed to women. Domestic violence is an institutionalized, systematic form of abuse. As an issue that is seen as being situated within the realm of the “private”, victims and survivors often find it difficult to seek redress because of its normalization. Joking about domestic violence perpetuates a culture where violence against women is the norm. Further, such jokes may act as a trigger for members of the audience who may be victims or survivors of such violence.
They wrote that he also made jokes denigrating “one of the most powerful leaders of the country”, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati, by denigrating her appearance, “painted a troublesome picture of women”:
He joked how a woman, while having sex with her husband, noticed how dirty the house was, and called her domestic help as soon as her ‘sahib’ was done, so the house could be cleaned…
Some of his other jokes included women being bad drivers, as while driving, they simultaneously perform other tasks such as putting on make-up and feeding their babies.
Defending their right to free speech and form of protest, the protestors wrote in their open letter:
Now, moving on to the form that the protest took, it is important to keep in mind that it was spontaneous. While we continue to maintain that the form of protest we chose was legitimate, in hindsight we recognize that perhaps alternate feminist methods of expressing our dissent could have been explored, given the circumstances. As a community our commitment to feminism cannot be so fragile that we abandon the cause merely because of disagreement on the suitability of the form of protest.
We believe that different forms of protests are ‘suitable’ for different situations and it should be up to the protestors to choose their form keeping in mind the circumstances. A certain form of protest may be ‘unsuitable’ for a situation but nonetheless legitimate. One could imagine that a marginalized group may face a situation where they are pushed to a corner, and therefore feel the need to resort to a disruptive protest. Indeed it would be ironic for persons not part of the protest to be dictating the form of protest…
In retrospect, we do believe that there might have been a better but equally legitimate a form as we adopted. We must also realize that consequences of an alternative form of protest are up to conjecture, and there is no guarantee that they would have lead to an unprecedented engagement on the issue…
Further, our speech did not even constitute ‘heckling’. The right to free speech does not subsume the right to consequence free speech. Just as clapping, cheering and hooting in appreciation are legitimate reactions to a speech, a critical reaction, which may not be courteous or polite, is also as legitimate. Moreover, denying us our right to protest would have impinged on our right to free speech. If we deem only speech recognized as deserving of legitimate state restrictions as expression which can be legitimately protested against by non-state actors, that would spell death for free speech of dissent. […]
We must recognize that speech can effectively counter other speech if the marketplace of speech is actually free. However, in the real world different power differentials and structures do exist, and for that reason, one speaker has a position of power over the other. In this case, Abish Mathew had the mic and stage, while the protesters, carrying their posters, were asked to move aside, and to let the show continue. If we were to truly give counter speech a chance, should we not have created space for that speech? Is it enough to say that they could have countered Abish’s speech later, for instance through a blog post? Or should the organisers have given the protesters the stage for a few minutes after Abish’s speech?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
In the case in question, considering that the protestors knew very well Abhish Mathew's brand of humour (considering that they are aware of the AIB Roast), their conduct in depriving others of the show (considering that it had to be cut short) is clearly unfair, though I wouldn't go so far as calling it unconstitutional.
These are my personal views.
Best wishes,
Prachi
You paid for a comedian who was neither able to crack better jokes after having had time to prepare for a scheduled performance, nor was able to spontaneously and in an entertaining way handle some heckling which is such a common feature of stand-up acts around the world.
He fumbled and cut it short. That is how he got blocked.
Best wishes,
Prachi
And this was not because his jokes were universally unfunny, this was because a particular section of the audience did not have it to their liking. If the whole point of protecting the freedom of speech is to protect artistic expression against anyone, the majority or the minority, then its just a question of semantics whether there was a clamp down or not.
My issue is not that they cannot protest, let them, but it should not disrupt the artist or the performance, or try and set a benchmark for what constitutes funny and what does not.
If we're standing up for a performer's right to (rude) free speech, then why not for the protestors' right to (rudely) protest?
Sometimes, comedians/people say something which makes the audience angry.
Should comedians be free to joke about rape?
Pedophilia? Someone once made a joke saying children are sexually attractive and never saw the end of it.
The Holocaust? The gravity of saying "I love Hitler" depends on where you are saying it.
The world and India is no longer an old boys club. Especially in light of the ongoing discussions on misogyny in our country, I am not a bit surprised at the reaction.
Your point sounds a lot like "It was just some jokes on women, why be so upset unless you have other feministic troll type agenda". Nobody can explain the difference between a fatwa and a placard to you if you don't already get it.
Also, private parties have no obligation to ensure free speech. What you are talking about is respect for the performer. Unfortunately, the performer cannot get greater respect than his act commands.
"Sometimes people say something which makes the audience angry" - if that is your take on it, then might as well not watch it? Stand up acts are not here for the sake of their political correctness, or for their adherence to the tenets of feminism (which you and I both seem to espouse, but in our own ways).
"the gravity of saying I love Hitler"-again does not depend on where I am saying it, it depends to what end I am saying it. If its a stand up act, go for it.
The world and India is not and ought not be a boys club, I agree. And my point was not that "it was just some jokes on women". My point simply is " it was just some jokes".
Private parties may not have express statutory obligation to ensure anything but that does not mean the right to disrupt anything.
Sometimes people say stupid things, the onus is not on the listener to stop interacting with anyone.
You are telling me that its important to what end a joke is being told. Sure, to what was Abhish telling the joke except to generate laughter?
And it does depend where. You say it to your friend in your own house, it's one thing. You say it on the stage, it's another.
I never said you had no right to disrupt, folks could have walked away. Its the manner in which you do it that matters. Name calling, heckling etc are not.
Yes, he was doing an act to generate laughter. I agree. Cannot see your point.
Your iteration that its okay for me to say sexist jokes behind closed doors while maintaining a facade outside is self defeating. Is it not an attitudinal change that is desirable, is this not the sort of change that can seep into everyday life?
On my example, you making sexist jokes anywhere is not okay by me, but I can't control what you do in private. What you do in public is fair game.
You say it's open season in a comic act, I am telling you that it's open season always. Both ways.
It was their college, they were at liberty to take the podium afterwards and deliberate on how the stand up act was not in good taste, publicly. They could have had an honest discussion with the performer(s). None of this happened. What happened was certainly not in good taste and its difficult to categorize it as laudable just because the ends to which it is done, is. Process before product.
Protesters protested = Freedom of Speech and Expression
Criticism of Protesters' Method = Freedom of Speech and Expression
Defending Protester's Method = Freedom of Speech and Expression
As long as it is not restricted by Article 19(2), chill, all of them have a legal right to express their opinion. As Justice Nariman says, discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause 'howsoever unpopular' is at the heart of Freedom of Speech and Expression.
By their very nature, Subjective things cannot be Objectified.
its just a joke for fucks sake.. im sure he doesnt endorse the reality that such thought patterns exist.. in fact id kinda think his making fun of it involves an inherent criticism of it
(ii) The protestors have the right to protest. Even if common courtesy demanded that they let Abhish finish and that the organisers should have been smarter in offering the protestors a right to rebut.
(iii) The anti-protestors have a right to anti-protest, to the point that it is not threatening or intimidating to the protestors.
(iv) The only people looking silly in this are the organisers, for not handling the situation better than this.
(v) The protestors and anti-protestors went back to their hostels/ houses after the event and laughed along to the AIB, Stephen Colbert, Borat, Louie CK, Seinfeld, Big Bang Theory, Comedy Nights with Kapil, etc. etc. etc. Or they didn't laugh since they weren't watching. Caveat emptor after all.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first