I’m trying to figure something out. When did our world become so confused that we consider a play that challenges us to see a real, live, human being instead of a faceless monster known as a terrorist as a play that “glorifies terrorism”?
I’m not a political or news junkie who follows every twist and turn, who ponders every potential nuanced meaning to what a politician says or doesn’t say. I get bored with listening to the rhetoric and the spin doctors make me feel more cynical than I ever want to be. But I’m pretty sure that a phrase like glorifying terrorism implies that the person or thing doing that thinks terrorism is a good thing …. shudder … or that, at the very least, that it might at some point be the right course of action.
But looking past the stereotype that has been created for us and seeing that there is a real person behind the label? That doesn’t mean the person made the right choice or even that they shouldn’t receive a just punishment if found guilty in a court of law. That’s not glorifying terrorism, that’s reminding us that all those people we’ve been carefully taught to hate and fear are human and not so very different from us when we look beyond the surface.
I’m also not a theatre critic. I know what I enjoy and what I don’t. Catherine Frid’s play Homegrown falls somewhere in between. The play caused much controversy last summer before it had even been seen when it was produced at Summerworks in Toronto. It seemed so hard to fathom that it really had nothing to do with Summerworks’ exclusion from federal funding this year, that theatre companies across the country banded together to stage public readings as fundraisers in something like 11 locations on July 15, 2011. I had the privilege of attending the reading in Vancouver.
At points, it made me uncomfortable. I didn’t want to feel sympathy for a man who was eventually convicted as a terrorist for his part in the Toronto 18. It certainly didn’t ever imply or make me think that his choices to participate in planning terrorist acts were the right decision. It would have been easier to watch if the author had let me hold onto the stereotypes that make it seem okay for our “justice” system to treat a “monster” with less care than we would demand an animal receive as a bare minimum necessity.
Only the characters based on the author and the man eventually convicted as a terrorist seemed fully developed. The others seemed wooden and one dimensional. I suspect that was the result of an inexperienced playwright, but even if it was a conscious choice to ensure that the audience only connected with the main characters, I felt the author’s sense of betrayal as she realized that this man whom she championed had some significant responsibility for the terrorist acts being planned. He wasn’t just an innocent bystander who was duped or entrapped or misled. He may have been all of those things as well, but he chose not to report what he knew. Yes, he may have tried to mitigate the damage that might be caused, but he could have made the choice to stand firmly against that kind of violence.
But does his culpability mean that he shouldn’t still be seen as a person worthy of being treated with dignity and respect? Do we really think it’s okay to leave someone in solitary confinement for more than a year? Does that help us stop terrorism or does it actually inspire more virulent hatred? Would our world be so prone to violent acts if we stopped demonizing those with whom we disagree?
That’s the thing, art is supposed to expand our world, not narrow it. It should cause us to take a step back and wonder how we can make the world a better place. It’s good when it makes us uncomfortable and makes us question the beliefs we now accept as indisputable fact.
If we want to move beyond stereotyping people and even countries or religious groups based on their ideology or skin color, we need to see those groups of people as individuals. Human beings who are more like us than we sometimes care to admit. Human beings who are passionate about their beliefs. Human beings who are tired of being trampled on and racially profiled based on the actions of a smaller group of human beings with whom they share some commonality. Human beings who may at some level have made poor or even horrendous choices about how to make sure their view is heard. But still, human beings, in all their marvellous imperfection.
If we started seeing people who are different from us as human beings with intrinsic value simply because they are human, maybe they wouldn't feel the need to express themselves in such violent ways to ensure their voices are heard.
Call me crazy but I always thought "pro-terrorism" meant supporting killing people and blowing things up as a way to make your point. I’m pretty certain it is something entirely different than that, when a piece of art reminds us the monsters we fear most are not really so different from the people we see in the mirror everyday. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that a play that challenges us to be a better society is exactly the kind of art I’m proud to see our country support with federal grants. It’s a shame our federal government doesn’t seem to feel that way any more.
