What is the right thing to do in the Watain case?

What is the right thing to do in the Watain case?

Mm...what is right anymore? Does it matter? Before I comment, here’s the facts about this metal band. 

Watain is “among the more radical bands in black metal, a sub-genre of metal music characterised by songs which often have dark and violent themes” (Eddino Abdul Hadi, music correspondent).

Their performance in Singapore was cancelled at the eleventh hour when they were scheduled to perform that night. All preparations have been made, including booking of the premises, selling of the tickets and fans travelling from other countries to attend. 

Here is why they were banned.

The law ministry took a moral stand and said: -

“If you look at the band, they do have a history, very offensive towards Christians, Jews, supportive of violence including...the burning of churches. They have even said they encourage any terrorist act committed in the name of the band and various other statements which are quite offensive.”

IMDA also took a moral stand and made a statement “that the band is known for its Satanist views, and some of their previous controversial performances involved animal carcasses and throwing pig’s blood on its audience.”

Even MP Darryl David threw his moral hat into the paternalistic ring. He said: “From what I understand, there are certain bands that use the issue of Satanism and devil worship allegorically, as a gimmick. But, from what I read from Watain’s interviews, for them it’s not symbolism, it’s literal; they do engage in such activities.”

Darryl added: “While we are trying to promote artistic freedom, where do we want to draw that line in terms of what then becomes an affront to the values of our community?”

Yup, that’s the issue, “Where do we want to draw that line in terms of what then becomes an affront to the values of our community?”

Personally, I call that the cultural line (or culturally defensive line). 

At this point, I am thinking, if the church is not called to fame, power or politics, but to act as the conscience of society, then should the church be the first to draw the cultural line (notwithstanding the Catholic sex scandal)?

Well, they did, with this rather unusual encounter with our law minister, Mr Shanmugam. 

He recounted that in his dialogue with Christian preachers on the subject, they told him that “you are very, very strict when it comes to anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic messages, including the banning of a Danish cartoon and the book The Satanic Verses, which some would say was literature.” (Sue-Ann Tam and Choo Yun Ting). 

“They said what these people (Watain) are saying is far worse, it is a hundred times worse about Christianity - how come you would allow that? ... They said you treat the Muslim community differently than the Christian community.”

Reading that, I am quite surprised that as the conscience of society, these Christian preachers actually used comparison between religions (supposedly among other persuasions) to make a point. 

Nevertheless, Shanmugam heard them. He said: “I looked at it and I thought that there is some truth to what they say. I won’t say that it is completely true but it is an approach.”

Personally, I call that the cultural approach to truth. For not all truths are created equal, some are more equal (and urgent) than others

So, this is where Shanmugam presented a picture that had gone viral depicting “mainly young Malay men showing the one-finger sign with Watain.”

He said: “I think they went to the concert, got angry, they are showing the one-finger sign. In a multiracial society, they don’t understand that the concert is anti-Christian, it criticises Jesus and Christianity and churches and they talk about burning churches and so on.”

And added, “If we had a concert like this about Islam, there is no way we would have allowed it. If a group of Chinese went and showed the finger sign and said that we should allow it - how would you all have felt? It is the same.”

Lesson? Well, I have three in the form of three questions: Where do we draw the line, that is, the cultural line? Who draws it? And on what basis do they draw it? 

The first question is about tolerance. The second is about legitimacy. And the third is about authority. 

On tolerance, the question is, should we allow people to live and let live, minding their own moral business within the perimeters of their own moral behaviour?

Gabriel Deen, who has played in a home-grown black metal band such as Funeral Hearse said: “If you don’t agree with what the band stands for, then just don’t go to the show. We are all just music fans and we don’t shove our personal music ideologies down other people’s throats.”

Even a Christian (Linda Ong - a lawyer who is a member of a band called Lunarin and disagrees with the ban) said: -

“Art is never to be taken at face value and there is so much subtext and nuance when one studies and appreciates it. By stating from a blinkered perspective of her own religion and with zero knowledge of metal, thereby taking a very superficial and biased view of the music, the person who started the petition has arrogantly imposed her own perspective on everyone else, including others who do not share her beliefs.”

Linda was talking about Rachel Chan who petitioned for a ban online, labelling them as “satanic music group”. It reports that the petition has racked up 18k signatures. 

But the protest here is that “some have gone to Reddit to complain that their accounts were used to sign it without their permission.”

Be that as it may, based on the thoughts of Linda and Gabriel, is that the enlightened approach to tolerance in our society? 

Because if you think about it, Watain is not the first foreign black metal band to play locally. 

Our authority has allowed “Swedish band Dark Funeral to perform in 2002, Norwegian band Mayhem in 2006, while Swedish band Marduk performed in 2010.” 

But I guess they are not as “satanic” as Watain or as blatant about it as Watain. That may be why they made the cultural cut. 

Still, the problem with defending such cultural line is that in a multiracial, multi religious, strictly secular society, all of us somehow suffer from some form of split-moral personality. 

And this brings me to the issue of legitimacy and authority. 

Everybody has an opinion about what is right, moral and good. Darryl, the law ministry, Rachel, Linda, Gabriel, Shanmugam and the church have their own views. These views vary in authority, legitimacy, power and influences. 

Some views like Darryl and Shanmugam are based on the social contract the people have signed and cast into the ballot boxes. Some views like the Christian preachers and NCCS are based on theological and traditional justifications. And as for the diverse views of Rachel, Linda and Gabriel, theirs are personal, with a mixture of religion, liberal values and postmodernist ideas. 

Everyone has a view, an opinion and has an influence, but ultimately, our government has the final say. They authoritatively draw the cultural line with electoral legitimacy. They set the cultural tone and hue of the society. 

Seen in this light, no secular culture is fixed. Its cultural center is always based on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people, for unanimity is deemed unachieveable. In other words, its core is based on the principles of deep pragmatic utilitarianism. 

As such, the morality of a secular culture is essentially an evolving one, like the common law, and this evolution at its various stage of development becomes the de facto conscience of the society. 

At this stage of our moral development, the black metal band watain does not make the cultural cut. And this is not so much about subtext, nuances, religious favouritism or personal moral objections, but the perceived religious and social disharmony it threatens to create, whether real or imagined. 

And on a more pragmatic/democratic level, it is also about the votes of confidence in our still highly conservative society. 

But let me just say that I harbour no illusions about a secular state like ours. Since it is evolving, I won’t be surprised if some values once deemed inappropriate and banned would become common moral currency over time - albeit I do not foresee satanism (and terrorism) would ever at any time make the cut. 

And let me end by sharing my personal views on morality in society. And for that, I go back to the time of a scandal many centuries ago. It was to a time where king Herod reigned. 

Although Herod was ruthless, having about eleven wives, and having murdered his mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, two sons and his favourite wife, he was nevertheless considered great amongst the people who mattered at that time. Despite the moral atrocities, his greatness was largely power-based. 

Yet, there was another greatness during his time that was not based on power, but obedience and sacrifice. However, the society then did not see him as great, not even by a long shot. In fact, he was scandalous to them. Even the religious leaders saw him as scandalous, outrageous even. 

He did not appeal to power to change people. Neither was might used by him to transform others. His greatness was willed powerlessness, and he lived his life away from the limelight by following another light that dispelled darkness, not in collusion with it. 

His greatest scandal was when he was hung on the Cross. He was deemed a rebel, a troublemaker, and was punished as a criminal with the criminals. His death was seen as a victory for the Herods of his time, a victory of cultural morality.

If you do not already know, this scandalous man is the scandalous Christ. 

And for me, enduring morality is not found in any institution wielding earthly power and fame. It is on the contrary found in the unlikeliest of places. And it is found in the most scandalous personality at that time. It is found at the Cross. 

It is there that morality stood alone. He was abandoned by all. He stood with sinners. He bled with them. He demonstrated what love was, selfless love. He led, lived and died by example.

And it might have been the greatest scandal of that time or for all time, but it was the scandal that transformed the world, that transformed hearts. And it was done not by might or power, neither by fortune nor fame, but by the spirit within, by a love that overcame and never let go.

For this reason, and unless I find a morality as scandalous as His, I will always struggle to be good, I will always struggle to do what is right.