And then we look down on Islamic states as backward, for doing just this kind of thing
For all I know, the script is awful, the director is a bit of a wotsit and the acting would have been awful, complete with the usual hyper-fake accents. But banning the performance because it’s got a bit about abortion in it? What’s this – the Catholic shariah?
If this person Buckle is not just another poseur who’s ready to take only the easy stances – standing up to be counted among several thousand who want an opera house, for example – then instead of whining and adopting this “Look here, we’ll see about that” attitude, he’ll just go ahead and stage the damned play – in the open air, if necessary – and provoke a major run-in with the police, which will make the authorities look ridiculous and oppressive.
And if those authorities decide not to make a martyr of him and give instructions to the police to let him perform his play without harassment – well, then, he’s won his case. But I imagine that the director of Unifaun is not prepared to defy the authorities in any meaningful way for his art. Let’s hope he’s not just another waste of space.
Adrian Buckle, you invited me to one of your plays recently and I told you that I don’t go to the theatre in Malta because I find it mind-numbing. I give you my word that if you defy this bunch of buffoons and stage your play all the same, I’ll be there in the front row, even if it means I have to sit on the ground. I will also promote it via this blog and help raise contributions towards your costs.
The Times – 26 January
Controversial play banned
Christian Peregin
A controversial play which discusses abortion has been banned from being staged locally, but the producer is intent on getting the decision overturned claiming it is unconstitutional. Adrian Buckle, director of Unifaun Productions, said that after reviewing the script, the Maltese classifiers “banned and disallowed” the play. He wants to know the official reasons behind the decision.
He said the play, entitled Stitching, is about a relationship gone bad because of an unwanted pregnancy, and among other issues it discusses abortion. Mr Buckle said he could not go into further detail without giving away the plot and he was determined to put it on anyway. Although there are some shocking instances in the play, Mr Buckle commented that some of his past productions, like Blasted and Paul, were more hard-hitting.
He is currently discussing the matter with his lawyers because he feels that the decision to ban the production goes against the EU’s laws on freedom of expression. The controversial play, by the Scottish writer Anthony Neilson, features characters assaulting each other with a dildo, and a woman mutilating and stitching up her private parts. When it was staged at the Edinburgh festival in 2002, some people walked out in disgust, according to reports in The Guardian newspaper.
45 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
i went to see Blasted at St James. Two men stood with their willies out: one of them ‘masturbated’ twice with his hands in his trousers, making all the real noise that goes with that action. He then ‘raped’ a woman actor and in return he was ‘raped’ by a soldier. All of this naked…except for the woman.
[Daphne – Well, as long as they didn’t mention abortion….Now you know why I don’t go to the theatre. I can switch the television off and fast-forward a DVD. You mean people actually sat through it?]
If i’m not wrong, in ‘Paul’, one actor spent some time in his tanga and then got his head under the actress’s dress and…
Daph…next time round go to one of Buckle’s plays… surely not “mind-numbing”.
[Daphne – I’ll go to the one that’s been banned, if he has the guts to put it on regardless. Otherwise I couldn’t be bothered. Life’s too short.]
Well, to be 100% honest it’s not banned because of the abortion part but because of the supposedly “strong” scenes like the self mutilation – not that it makes banning it any more justifiable of course.
[Daphne – Out of curiosity, how do you know? And let me get this straight: we have just been subjected to the real-life graphic details of a murder in which a woman was stabbed 50 times, yet we have to be shielded against the horrors of simulated self-mutilation on stage.]
This rock is a source of perpetual amusement. If ‘The play is the Thing’, let it all ‘hang out’. Give the guy a chance.
I do know actually, one of the persons responsible told a very good friend of mine (who gave him an earful) that people should be “protected” from such scenes! (even though not in those words)
Typical Maltese condescending effing bastards who think they know what’s good for us!
Twits like that continue to miss the point that even if we KNOW something is bad for us we still have the bloody right to do it if we feel the need to (obviously without hurting others etc)
In Blasted they ate a baby.. literally…just as long as the baby is born, I guess..
@ASP,
Thank god I didn’t go then, I know some of the actors.
David Buttigieg, your friend should watch Ichi the Killer, he’ll need protection from nothing else after watching that!
It’s pointless sensationalising the issue with comments like ‘in Blasted they ate a baby’ and ‘in Paul one actor spent some time in his tanga’. Go and see the plays in question, see the scenes in context and then feel free to comment and engage in debate. In fact, I hate it when publicity for plays focuses on the sensational parts because I know that it actually puts people off. As for the board of censors, it should be completely disbanded. I can’t tell you how many meetings we had to go through with them when I was producing Laughing Wild for the MADC last year… all because Alan Montanaro appeared as the Infant of Prague for one scene…
http://www.repubblica.it/2009/01/sezioni/esteri/benedetto-xvi-29/intervista-kung/intervista-kung.html
Not exactly what is being discussed here. But you get the idea.
Let us hope that at the very least the play is not being advertised during cinema shows aimed at children, as was “Blasted”.
(The advertorial “stills” for “Blasted” were shown during the screening of the film “High School Musical” at one of the most popular cinemas here, when the theatre was jam-packed with children under the age of ten.
Though the “stills” did not have any sexual content, the images were still unsuitable for children – let alone such young ones. I objected with the duty manager but was given a blank look.
Anyone remembers “Oh Calcutta!” in the seventies?
@Amanda Mallia
Welcome to the progressive and liberal EU.
The film The Other Side of Midnight, released in 1977, had part of it censored when it was shown in the cinemas of Malta. The censored part was that of a woman performing an abortion on herself by using a clothes hanger. Although this scene was not graphic (because I saw the original film abroad), the Maltese censors thought it fit to cut off this bit as they deemed it objectionable on moral grounds. Seems that the mentality of some has not changed much in the last 30 years !
“I give you my word that if you defy this bunch of buffoons and stage your play all the same, I’ll be there in the front row, even if it means I have to sit on the ground. I will also promote it via this blog and help raise contributions towards your costs.”
Good to see this dissenting attitude. Prosit! Pity it relates only to old cobwebs while new ones are being spun, but what the heck, Qrendi wasn’t built in a day.
BTW, Daphne, if your guest-post invitation is still on, your anti-hero would be glad to pour some of her gravy on your train. She was a little busy at the time (coordinating elves and what not), but now she’s back for a few days in Wafflestown and this evening might be the right time. But don’t bet on it – yet.
[Daphne – OK, but she’s got to stick to the point. Hardly anyone reads articles written by political candidates and politicians, and it’s because they’re generally rubbish. And give the sarcasm a rest, please, because it’s getting a bit tedious.]
Don’t be so touchy, Daphne. There’s no sarcasm – truly.
[Daphne – Oh, I’m not touchy at all. I would have hanged myself by now if I were. It’s just that sarky tones grate after a while, that’s all – not just yours.]
Is such filth, culture?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/aug/05/edinburgh02.edinburgh
[Daphne – That’s not the point, Albert. Are crimes being perpetrated on stage? Are children and animals being harmed? Are non-consenting adults being coerced into performing debasing acts? This is the point: that other adults should not be placed in a position by the state where they tell you and me that we’re not allowed to see this play because it will shock us. That’s something we can decide for ourselves, as grown-ups. Given the choice, I wouldn’t watch it because I absolutely cannot stand that kind of thing and I find plays to be generally tedious and with little more than curiosity value from the pre-motion picture age. But that’s just me. I know others love it and find things like this exciting, and that’s their business. Now here’s the thing: precisely because the board of censors has told me – a grown woman with a grown family and a responsible job – that I am not allowed to see it because I might be shocked, then I feel in duty bound to tell them where to get off and go and watch it, should the producers decide to defy the ban, purely out of moral support and to take a stand against this outrageous bossiness. For the duration, I will probably borrow an iPod which I will use discreetly and keep my eyes closed, but I am going to make a point of being there. Just imagine if the state were to set up some board or other to dictate to me what sorts of subjects I am permitted to write about in this blog, what sort of language I can use, whether I am allowed to write things that might shock people who log on. What’s the difference? None.]
I’m not in favour of censorship but then neither am I in favour of vulgarity posing as art. It is just as bad as that dog that was tied in a museum (I think in New York) and left to starve to death – all in the name of art!
But then I suppose in order to embrace freedom of expression we have to put up with lack of taste too. Or worse, shocking just for the sake of it. That doesn’t make it art or cool. On the basis of his past shows, I don’t have much faith in Buckle’s sense of taste so I’ll be choosing not to go. Enjoy the show.
[Daphne – Actually, no animals are being harmed. As for bad taste, I get an overdose of that every time I drive around, turn on Maltese television or walk down Republic Street, which is why I prefer to stay home with the television off. At least you can avoid a play. It’s more difficult to avoid the rest. And don’t confuse the issues: not going to see a play that’s in bad taste is one thing. Deciding for others and banning them from seeing it is quite another. In a free country, you do what was described in that news report. Don’t go into the theatre and protest outside instead. Or go, and walk out in disgust.]
@Sybil
Well, in SOME parts of the EU, youth protection does exist.
Surely there are more examples to find.
FSK(Voluntary Self Regulation of the Movie Industry):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiwillige_Selbstkontrolle_der_Filmwirtschaft
“[Daphne – Oh, I’m not touchy at all. I would have hanged myself by now if I were. It’s just that sarky tones grate after a while, that’s all – not just yours.]”
Let’s be rational. You can’t deride and denigrate people, and at the same time expect them or their followers to react with utmost respect. There’s nothing wrong with your style of writing – but then what goes around comes around. It is this style that elicits smartass comments, sarcasm and offensive remarks. Add to this your numerous stalwart disciples trying their best to emulate you and you get a legion of self-righteous, name-calling apes defending a hive.
My subjective view, perhaps – but if you specialise in derision, you’d be touchy to be annoyed by a returned dose of the same.
[Daphne – I don’t use sarcasm, Kev. That’s for people who can’t do better. And I don’t know when I last saw an ape defending a hive, but I’ll let that go.]
What’s instructive is that these so called ‘liberal’ minded stories are being written by Christian Peregin. Is there an agenda I wonder?
[Daphne – I would imagine that you’re the reporter with the agenda, Gerald, but let’s not go there.]
@Daphne
Having read the report in The Guardian I am inclined to agree with the decision for the play not to be staged. Especially since it was to be staged at St James Cavallier, which is after all funded from the taxpayers’ pocket. The producers of such cheap filth have every right to stage such nonsense, but not in government property. I, as a taxpayer, do not want such twisted rubbish to be passed on as culture in “my” property. Yes, let them go out in a field if they want, but not at St. James.
Which goes to show how the building of a Parliament is much more important than a hall for the performance of such lunacy on the site of the former Opera House.
And the play does not “discuss abortion” as the new bright young The Times reporter has written, making it sound as if this was some production in which characters discuss the pros and cons. The play shows, according to The Guardian report “a man masturbating over pictures of women being herded into a gas chamber in Auschwitz”. Today is the day of remembrance of the Holocaust. Imagine how the survivors of Auschwitz might feel at such a scene. You see, free speech does not mean you have the right to offend everything and everyone as you deem fit, under the guise of “culture”.
Imagine this, shall we stage a play showing a man masturbating on a picture of our very own Tent City, or to a picture of a pregnant woman being helped out of an immigrant boat? Wouldn’t this be filth of the highest order? You are defending the staging of the play just because you read that it “discusses abortion”, which it does not. Why don’t you start yourself a pro-choice campaign, instead? Maybe within the Nationalist Party?
And let’s leave such filthy productions to those who enjoy them.
[Daphne – Albert, Albert! How can you be offended if you don’t make a deliberate point of buying a ticket and going to watch? You might as well try to ban people from saying things in their living-rooms that might offend you if you heard them in a public square.]
Lol Daphne, you surprised me with your comment to Albert.
For shock value, I’d watch a Kubrick film or an Asian thriller, now that’s art.
A quick analysis on the content of these plays reveal they are nothing more than gay porn, S&M and Scat porn.
I want to lie down and weep when I read comments like those of Albert Farrugia.
Why, here in Malta, do we find it so hard to understand what free speech is all about? Unless something conforms with what we think and accept as valid, then it suddenly deserves to be condemned and outlawed. Free speech, in most people’s minds, seems to apply only to that with which they agree.
Why is it so hard to accept that there needs to be a space for dissenting voices in our midst, without which we cannot ever discern between the truth and falsehood.
@ Albert Farrugia
St James is actually making money by hosting the play in its theatre. Theatres in Malta are rented out to production companies for fixed fees, regardless of whether there’s a packed house or an old biddy and two stray cats. It’s costing you nothing of your tax money, because the play is NOT funded by St. James. On the contrary, it’s this play and others that are funding St. James.
You wrote: “And let’s leave such filthy productions to those who enjoy them”. That’s precisely the point.
Those who don’t want to watch this production aren’t in any way being forced at gunpoint to buy a ticket. Just as I may choose not to buy a ticket to go and watch Joseph Calleja (for instance), other people may choose not to buy a ticket to go and watch Stitching. Because we are all thinking, rational adults, we have the capacity to make these choices maturely. Freedom of speech means exactly this: that you needn’t dictate to me that I should go and watch Joseph Calleja (for instance), and that I needn’t dictate to you go and watch Stitching.
The Guardian piece is written in a sensational vein and the incidents it mentions are written about totally out of context. I do wish people wouldn’t be so quick to judge just on the basis of one newspaper article. If it’s not your cup of tea fine, don’t come and watch. And if you do come just to be shocked, or expecting porn, don’t bother, because I believe you’d be disappointed. What matters in this play is not the shock element but the emotions and relationships behind the moments. When I read it I was shocked, but also moved and touched by it. But people seem to think that it’s not necessary to see it, they can just condemn it out of hand. Fine, but let those of us who wish to perform it do so and let those who are not so easily swayed by a few words in a newspaper come and watch it. As Paula said, forget about the sensationalism and if you want to comment, first watch the play and then say whatever you like. And no, no animals are being tortured, how is that a relevant comparison? And one more thing before I stop ranting, to Albert Farrugia: why is what The Guardian said the gospel truth to you, and therefore the play is filth, while what was said in The Times, about discussing abortion, is not true? Aren’t they both newspaper articles? Sorry, but basing your argument on what you read in the papers, while being selective about which article is true, doesn’t really make sense. Right, I’m shutting up now. Thanks for the forum, Daphne.
The last time I looked you couldn’t buy much porn in Malta and you couldn’t watch much porn on TV either. Indeed until fairly recently you couldn’t even buy the soft-core variety, whereas in several European countries both varieties can now be bought off the high street. But nobody seems to be too bothered by this state of affairs. Is it perhaps because porn is ‘just porn’ and a play like this is ‘art’? I’d like to hear the views of the persons commenting here on this fact. It seems to me that Malta’s obscenity laws are still pretty strict whichever way you look and that ‘the problem’ is not limited to this single play and to this single decision. Or am I wrong?
The main argument here is that an authority which purports to “decide for others and ban them from seeing (the play)” is unacceptable in a modern democratic society.
I assume that people who say this will support a severe relaxation of our approach to pornography.
[Daphne – It all depends on what sort of pornography you mean. On the understanding that your right to free expression ends where your fist meets my face, women have a strong argument for fighting against the type of porn that debases their gender. I find it perversely amusing that bestial porn is illegal on the grounds that bestiality is a criminal act (no, you can’t get amorous with a goat, I’m afraid), but then porn which reduces women to the level of animals is quite legal because the people involved are consenting adults – or so we are told. The trouble is that those ordinary women who are not porn-stars or porn models but who have to deal with the fall-out – and believe me, there is fall-out – are not consenting in the process at all. The argument that porn keeps frustrated men from rushing out to rape women or molest them on public beaches is rubbish. It is far more likely to assist in the process of de-humanising us. Despite the introduction of porn magazines for sale openly at newsagents, and no doubt any number of porn films under and over the counter, I haven’t noticed any reduction in the number of perverts prowling our beaches and promenades.]
Hi Daphne.
First of all, thanks for the forum highlighting my plight. Here is what happened: I am a theatre producer. I specialise in a new line of theatre called experiential theatre or In-Yer-Face Theatre. It seems that the local classifiers don’t like this activity because they keep moaning about why I keep staging these plays. Well, since the money is coming directly out of my pocket, it is absolutely my business and the general public is free to buy a ticket or decline.
The issue here is not what kind of play I put on, but the assault against my freedom of expression. The European Court clearly states “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. It is applicable not only to “information”” or “ideas”” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.
Some people commenting here above have taken the liberty of reading reviews to justify the ban. The Guardian piece is totally misleading. The reference to Auschwitz is just one line a disturbed character mentions, quickly refused by the other. The same thing goes for the line on the moor killings. I find it hard to believe that people are accepting this ban on the basis of a subjective and misleading review, without having even read the script or seen the play.
On a final note, I will stage the play, whatever the eventualities. I strongly believe that censorship should be outlawed forever in this country.
First up I’d like to say thanks, Daphne, for your support and your frankness. You’re more than welcome in the front row – iPod or no iPod. I’m hoping we’ll move you enough that you’ll not want the iPod but that is left to be seen.
Now to the issue – I seem to be blue in the face from saying this over and over again. Malta is an island. Granted. We are for the most part bored people with not much to do. Granted. So what DO we do? We create gossip. The current issue is the content of the play, Stitching. There are no tortured animals, there is no masturbating on stage, there is no nudity, there is no profanity, no one is running after anyone with dildos. This is all blown out of proportion and misquoted or quoted out of context. Once people watch the play they’re going to ask us what we have cut out of the script. We are not cutting a single word, for the record. And YES the play WILL be staged one way or another.
The Guardian article that everyone is happily quoting and misquoting is not the only article out there. read this one:
http://www.stitchingtheplay.com/pressbrooklynrail.html
Now having said all that – even if the play WERE sadistic, pornographic, sensationalist, filthy and DID contain scenes of masturbation, rape, murder, and mutilation – no board has the right to tell me that I’m not allowed to watch it. They can warn me but not BAN me. This is unconstitutional and against my fundamental human rights.
So some perspective, people. This play will be staged. You don’t have to come and watch it. Those of you who are hesitatant – DO come. Tt’s a beautiful, tragic story. Promise.
Peter Camilleri
“Freedom of speech means exactly this: that you needn’t dictate to me that I should go and watch Joseph Calleja (for instance), and that I needn’t dictate to you go and watch Stitching.”
What about dictating that you shouldn’t go and listen to some bigot ranting and inciting you against blacks or an authority that bans you from looking at and possessing paedophile material.
Racism and paedophilia are illegal because somebody “decided for others” and enacted laws forbidding them. That’s why we elect members of parliament: every time a law is passed, somebody has taken a decision for us. In both racism and paedophilia, innocent people are hurt but, who says that it is wrong? It is a social norm based on the values of the majority and it is right that there should be somebody who enforces it through legislation. It is right, in other words, that there should be someone with the power to draw the line somewhere. You might not always agree with where the line has been drawn but you cannot claim that there should be no line, unless you are advocating an anarchy, which I doubt. The validity of an argument can be tested by taking it to an extreme and seeing if it still holds.
[Daphne – But that’s just the line that’s drawn, Antoine: where your actions harm others in a way that’s considered a crime (GBH, slander, murder, theft, vandalism….). For example, I have difficulties with laws that make racist speeches, articles and so on a crime. Because as you said, the same argument used to make this a crime can be used to make other subject-matter for speeches/articles a crime on the grounds that it ‘incites hatred’ or ‘hurts others’.
Yes, obviously in anything but an anarchical situation we must cede some of our rights and freedoms for the greater stability and order of society – but I think most of us would agree that having an adult decide for another adult that he or she may or may not see this film or play or read this book is another kettle of fish altogether.]
AnnDM
“Sorry, but basing your argument on what you read in the papers, while being selective about which article is true, doesn’t really make sense.”
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. I’m not saying that, in this particular case, The Guardian is more credible than our Times but, in general, when you read anything in papers or on the Internet, you have to distinguish between the different sources, i.e. be selective what to believe.
To Whom It May Concern
just another reference:
http://www.timeout.com/newyork/articles/theater/36331/stitching
Antoine:
At least please read the article in Pia’s link above, because both she and I know the play very well and can confirm that the Brooklyn Rail article is a fair and honest comment, unlike The Guardian one which is, as I said, sensationalised and very misleading.
Right, so things are a bit more complicated than “this bunch of buffoons have no right to tell me what to watch” and the “let’s eliminate censorship” line of attack. The author of this blog is now implying that if she were on a similar board which vetted certain pornographic magazines, she would be inclined to BAN (big bad word) porn which – in her view – ‘degraded women’ (assuming, it seems, that unless a woman is a pornstar, she is somehow unlikely to have ‘really’ consented). In other words, Daphne would herself make a case for “telling you what you can read”. It’s a subjective world. One man’s ‘art’ is another man’s ‘disgusting spectacle’. One woman’s erotica is another woman’s unacceptable degradation.
[Daphne – You misread me. I’m not into bans of books, magazines, etc – except where they are the result of crime against children or against trafficked women. What I said is that women are more than justified in their objections towards porn which denigrates them – I certainly object. That objection is at a personal level and I have no desire to impose it on the rest of society. I’ve remarked beneath Antoine’s comment that I struggle even with the idea of a ‘hate speech’ law that makes racist speech a crime. I used to feel differently before I thought about it some more and realised that the same rationale which underpins that law can be used to silence other forms of speech considered to be offensive or ‘hateful’. That’s why I’m all for having The Times publish those racist comments on its news portal, for example: it exposed the truth of how people think. It’s more important than silencing them. If you really believed I was an intolerant sort, you wouldn’t even bother trying to comment here, when you seem to spend the rest of your time making scathing and offensive remarks about me on the Hate Daphne sites while hiding your identity behind the same false name you’re using here. An intolerant person would have pressed the delete button and told you to go back and discuss this with your gaggle of chippy losers, none of whom have the balls to use their real name, unlike the person they are so busy ranting about. So there you have it: I tolerate even you.]
That’s it! Right from the wolf’s mouth………
http://www.illum.com.mt/2009/01/25/t1.html
[Daphne – I have to tell you that he’s right. Decisions in cabinet are not taken by the popular vote or a show of hands. They’re taken, ultimately, by the prime minister. That’s why he’s the prime minister, and his cabinet is not a committee. The buck stops with him, not with the nay-sayers or the yes-men.]
Your reaction to my first comment clearly implied that you would be inclined to take a strong stance with regard to certain material which you believed/assumed ‘women had not consented to’. Your second comment softens it slightly by stressing that is simply your ‘personal view’ and that you would not wish to ‘impose it on the rest of society’. But what exactly would you do if you WERE on a board and were faced with material (artistic/erotica/porn) which you really objected to and personally found obscene and degrading to ‘your gender’? You might end up being called a buffoon, I suppose.
[Daphne – It’s a huge mental leap from ‘taking a strong stance against’ to ‘banning’. I adopt a strong stance against the Labour Party. That doesn’t mean I want it banned. I adopt a strong stance against racists. That doesn’t mean I want them sent to a gulag. I draw a clear distinction between my own personal space and the country. So, while I will not accept certain things or certain people in my home, nor accept to be in their presence in other people’s homes or other spaces, this does not mean I am going to call for an outright ban on those things or those people just in case I might run into them accidentally elsewhere. As to your question, I would never accept a position on any such board, so the situation quite simply would not arise. A person who objects to censorship cannot in all conscience accept a censorship post. That stands to reason.]
For the record, I don’t think you’re intolerant (although you do have it in for the ‘hamalli Laburisti’, let’s face it). And I certainly don’t ‘hate you’. In fact, I rather appreciate the gutsy stance you’ve taken on many issues in a fairly cowardly society. But you are powerful, influential and often very very scathing about many many people. Some sort of reaction was, I think, inevitable. If you read through my comments on the site, you’ll see that I poke fun at attitudes rather than being offensive. I have even criticised other people for getting cruel. Now let’s face it, cruelty isn’t exactly always absent from your blog either.
[Daphne – Again, you misread me. What I find offensive about sites like that is not the content. It’s the snivelling cowardice. I despise cowards with an absolute passion and have done so since childhood. I have changed my opinion of people in an instant, permanently, just because of a cowardly word or a small gesture of spinelessness which leaves me unable to see them in the same light ever again. I’ve been in the public eye and under the spotlight now for much longer than most politicians on both sides of the house, and I wascompletely immune and indifferent to criticism even when I started out, let alone now, more so when it comes from people I don’t respect. There are a mere few people whose opinion I value and occasionally seek, and that’s about all. My name and in certain cases even my face are appended to everything I write or say, and this makes it even more difficult for me to regard with anything other than contempt those who fail to use their name, and possibly even their face, to say whatever they want to about me. I wonder what sort of households they grew up in – le, ahjar ma tghidx hekk; ahjar ma turix wiccek; ghaliex se tider int? Mhux ahjar thalli il x hadd iehor jitkellem? Terrible. Really Sicilian.]
What is most chafing about this whole episode is the lack of transparency with which the censorship board goes about its affairs. As a result, people here are forced to speculate about what it is exactly that caused such offence, ultimately a pretty vain exercise.
As usual, Malta needs to look elsewhere to see how things should be done properly. The British Board of Film Classification, for example, makes all its findings publicly available on its website – a practice that should could be considered normal in a mature and modern democracy.
The problem in Malta is that publicising the thought processes of members of the censorship board, inasmuch as they have any, would leave them quite deservedly open to ridicule.
Incidentally, what is the actual name of the body that adopts decisions on whether play can or cannot be put on? Presumably, whatever it’s called, it falls under the umbrella of the Ministry of Culture, Education, Youth and Sport. That itself is nothing short of a scandal – how in heaven’s name can one government department be responsible for such disparate areas?
@ Antoine Vella
I fully agree with you. Free speech cannot be absolute. If it were, it would trample over the rights of others at some stage. Where is the line drawn? At which point is free speech to be curtailed?
The highest authority on this matter is the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg. It, and it alone sets the benchmarks. In its body of judgements dating back several decades it has more or less established that a limitation to free speech is justified in the following cases:
– where the speech libellous or slanderous;
– where the speech incites racial hatred, violence, sedition, and (serious) civil unrest.
By and large the principle adopted by the court consistently over the years is that there must be a “clear and present danger” to the state and/or to society in order for a limitation to a human right (including free expression) to be subjected to a restriction.
This means, yes, it is justified in our society to curtail those who deliver racist speeches. It is justified to curtail those who slander and libel others. It is justified to curtail those who promote violence against the weaker members of society (such as children).
It is NOT, however, justified to curtail speech that injures nobody, and is a million miles away from the “clear and present danger” test. It is NOT justified to curtail speech purely on the basis that we don’t like it, or that it’s shocking … or that it doesn’t involve Julie Andrews singing “The hills are aliiiiive …”
I think it’s significant to point out that the very first case decided by the court against Malta (Demicoli -vs- Malta) involved free expression. Malta has CONSISTENTLY lost ALL its cases on free expression presented before the court to date. That fact alone speaks volumes about the national psyche on the subject.
Yes, I wouldn’t be too keen on being on that board either. The fact remains that unless we agree that absolutely everything should be allowed, you’re going to need some sort of structure which does indeed “tell you what you can and cannot see”. And those authorities will have to take controversial decisions. My objection is to people equating the people who do this job with the Taliban while it is plainly obvious that we have some pretty strict LAWS in place which prevent the distribution of material which in other countries can be bought off the high street.
DCG
“.. . you seem to spend the rest of your time making scathing and offensive remarks about me on the Hate Daphne sites while hiding your identity behind the same false name you’re using here.”
Sorry to go a bit off topic but this is a sore point with me. It is so unethical to use the name of a real person as a pen-name, especially if it is not a very common one such as, say, Joe Borg. There are a few real people called Sigmund Bonello and a casual reader could think that it is one of them writing here and elsewhere.
[Daphne – They can object, and a responsible moderator will deal with the situation accordingly. Some months ago, I noticed that somebody was posting ill-written, badly spelled, pro-Labour comments on timesofmalta.com under the name Darrin Caruana Galizia. I emailed the moderator to say that anyone called Darrin Caruana Galizia would have to be either my son or one of their cousins (it’s not a first name the older generation would have used), which this person was not, so would he please delete those comments and not allow the appropriation of a surname borne only by one family. He did.]
[Daphne – […] For example, I have difficulties with laws that make racist speeches, articles and so on a crime. Because as you said, the same argument used to make this a crime can be used to make other subject-matter for speeches/articles a crime on the grounds that it ‘incites hatred’ or ‘hurts others’.]
Well said, Daphne! Freedom of speech cannot be conditional. It is either free or it has parameters. Once parameters exist, there’s no telling to what extents it could be curtailed. If a particular speech is proved to have incited violent crime, then the law should apply, but NOT against what was said per se, but against what followed as a direct result.
Curtailing speech gives rise to labelling, marginalisation, despotism and ignorance.
I’ve come across the following related petition in an email:
http://www.petitiononline.com/CENMAL01/
@ ASP
Nice try :-)
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090129/local/producers-to-defy-stage-ban
Seems that Sig Bonello(?) has fallen in love with you, Daphne.
[Daphne – I very much doubt it. It’s probably more akin to morbid fascination.]
What is my agenda Daphne? And please note that I’m not a reporter but an Assistant Editor/freelance journalist. I don’t report events anymore.
[Daphne – Love the way you make assistant editor a proper noun. It Must Be Important.]