Stitching us up to keep the Jacquelines quiet
The last I heard, the production company that’s trying to put on Stitching was looking for a venue in which to perform this ‘banned’ play, after St James Cavalier – which first agreed to defy the ban – later decided that it couldn’t, because it is a state-run, state-owned venue. Echoes of Ivan Klima…
I hope the producers go ahead and that they don’t buckle under this kind of unacceptable policing of what we may and may not see. If they stage Stitching in defiance of the ban, it will serve as a sort of test-case. What is the government going to do – send in the police? March the actors out in handcuffs? Arrest the audience? I hardly think so, not unless it wishes to come across as something straight out of the pages of one of those Klima novels set behind the Iron Curtain. As the playwright so aptly put it, it’s not serious (as it would be in Russia, say); it’s just damned comical. Yes, it’s a farce.
Perception tells me that the censorship board is not concerned with how this play might corrupt our morals so much as with the reaction that staging it will provoke among the Moral Minority, who are a vociferous nuisance. Right now, the air is thick with the verbose and humourless whining of nuisances with a gripe, and the last thing we need is the Jacquelines marching out with their papal flags and their rosary beads and their holy water. So as not to have to deal with scenes of incendiary rage from those who believe they have a flying carpet to heaven, the members of the Censorship Board commit a crime against freedom of expression, and make themselves ridiculous in the process. Nobody is forced at gunpoint to watch plays, so those who might be upset can do what I do with any film about the Nazi concentration camps, including that offensively frivolous La Vita e Bella by that immensely irritating try-hard-wannabe-Woody-Allen, and just don’t go.
Adrian Buckle, if you’re out there, can you post an update, please?
The Sunday Times, 8 February
Decision to ban play is ‘almost comical’ – author
Herman GrechMalta is the first country to ban the play Stitching, a decision the author has described as “almost comical”. Anthony Neilson told The Sunday Times he was surprised when he learnt his play had been axed by the Board of Classification, adding that he did not think these things still took place in Europe.
Unifaun Theatre’s decision to stage the play, which depicts the disturbing and inventive games a couple play in order to connect, has whipped up controversy and rekindled arguments over freedom of expression. The ban of the play – the first in Malta since 1997 – has prompted the producers to seek court action. When asked how he would defend himself with the board, which banned the play on the grounds that it was blasphemous and obscene, Mr Neilson said:
“Neither of those terms are understandable to me. I am an atheist, so it’s impossible for me to blaspheme. And no work of art can be obscene. I could defend the play quite comprehensively but I genuinely think it would be investing such views with an importance they don’t deserve. The views of the board are arcane and silly and have no place in the modern world.” He said that any attempt to stifle freedom of expression should be challenged, though he admitted it was easy to be brave from a distance.
Is he insulted or chuffed that his play is getting so much attention? “If it becomes a focal point for an anti-censorship movement, all the better.” Ultimately, he said he found it hard to believe that censorship existed in this day and age. In totalitarian states, it was a very serious matter, but in a place like Malta, it is almost comical, Mr Neilson said. He said it was strange to think that there was an elite group who could view such material without damage but then seek to protect those ‘of weaker mind’ than themselves. These people must be very frightened by the world.
Mr Neilson goes a long way to defend the play that earned him a 2002 London Evening Standard Theatre Award for Most Promising Playwright. He said the play had been mired in misconceptions and quotes taken out of context. One such incident is when a character confesses that the first time he masturbated as a child, he was stimulated by a photo of naked women in Auschwitz. “There is no description of the act – it’s two lines. The point is simply about how little we understand about mortality when we are young – the mind and body are focused on reproduction, not death.”
Mr Neilson had been attacked for the play’s references to the Moors murders – the gruesome killings of four children in the 1960s. Winnie Johnson, the mother of a child who perished at the hands of the Moors murderers, said: “I would like to stop the play, but I can’t. The public should see it, and ask themselves: if people make plays about this, why can’t they do it in a positive way?” Mr Neilson explains the reasons behind the references – the couple at the centre of the play feel culpable for the death of their child and the woman compares themselves to the Moors murderers.
“It is an expression of self-disgust. Both of these moments are about self-disgust. If either was being condoned, the moments wouldn’t make any sense.” He added: “Is it in bad taste? What is taste? Who defines what good or bad taste is? It’s not a term I understand.” In 2002, some members of the audience walked out of Stitching as it was being performed at the Edinburgh festival. What did he think then? Mr Neilsen said he fully supported the right to walk out of plays, just as he supported the right to turn off televisions or close books. “I’m not interested in offending people. Offended people don’t pay attention… That said, there were very, very few walkouts, as far as I recall, and there may have been innocent reasons for those. That’s all been somewhat overstated.”
Whether any audience members will walk out in Malta, or if they have an opportunity to do so, remains to be seen. The producers have insisted that the play will be staged at an alternative venue, though no details have yet been given.
And just look at these intelligent comments, posted beneath the news report by somebody who thinks that the play offends ‘our religion’ (clearly, he hasn’t a clue) and that people who are atheists were raised by atheist parents. He’s not very observant. All the atheists I know were raised by ultra-religious parents who provoked an adverse reaction. As for his ‘atheist countries’, somebody should tell this wo/man that it is precisely with atheist states that this kind of censorship is/was associated: China, the Soviet Union, North Korea… It’s also associated with Muslim states. States that have a Christian heritage, on the other hand, no longer ban plays.
J Farrugia (1 day, 3 hours ago)
Mr Whitely, you will never see this mediocre and immoral play in Malta. Go to some atheist country and you will see it.
J Farrugia (1 day, 3 hours ago)
@Mr Sant Fournier. Why not ask the self proclaimed atheist to insult islam instead of our Catholic religion. Why insult the Holy cross, why insult Jesus christ? Why insult our catholic morality? Try insulting some other religion and let’s see what awaits this atheist. No we will not allow our catholic religion together with our beliefs to be insulted. We insist that this foreigner respects our christian religion and all other religions. If he wants to insult someone, better insult his mother for having brought him up an atheist. And when someone here in Malta tries to be funny by insulting our faith, let him remember and thank his lucky stars that YES he is living in a democracy. No one will tear his head up or issue an anathema against him, but still we want our religion to be repsected by chicche e sia.
27 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Here’s the leading article in The Sunday Times yesterday:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090208/opinion/editorial
It’s so odd isn’t it ? One of the greatest books ever compiled, and of course I’m referring to the Bible here, is full of accounts involving murders, deceit, all sorts of copulation, prostitutes, thieves, suicides, genocides and so on and so forth. And yet, this is a book that children carry in their school cases and is usually found in a prominent place inside our homes.
Is this play too much of a mirror perhaps ? Maybe we’ll get the chance to know first hand.
Can anyone tell me the definition of “ART” please?
Aaah, fatwa envy at play!
This is an extract from Fr Joe Borg’s blog (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090203/fr-joe-borg/are-we-on-the-eve-of-the-death-of-democracy)
“3. A play can be banned because it shows gross bad taste and makes the most indecent proposals.
This time it is Abby’s turn to shock. Don’t read if you don’t want to be shocked.
“Abby. I’d like us to hurt someone together. I’d like us to abduct a child and f*** it and burn it and kill it.”
She continues saying that she would like to see Stu sexually abuse (I have to paraphrase as the details in the script are too graphic to reproduce here even if I use a lot of asterisks.) the mothers of these murdered children while she films the abuse. And she continues:
“Abby: and then we could put the films on the web and sell them.”
How on earth can anyone describe the banning of such rubbish as a crime against democracy?”
Forgetting the rest, the above alone would certainly put me off watching the play. The thought of Pia Zammit (whom I find obnoxious to say the very least) being the one of the actors – directed by her husband Chris Gatt, presumably, not that it should make a difference – makes it all the more off-putting.
Then again, it takes all sorts to make a world, perverts included (and I’m no prude – I simply find it sick that people can derive enjoyment from other people’s suffering, even if in the name of “art”).
[Daphne – On that score, we might as well ban all news reports of actual child abductions by paedophiles.]
Re Mirror
‘Mirror, mirror on the wall, is there anyone there at all?’
Dear Daphne
Please allow me to use your blog to say something about this play which was banned. I do not want to sound negative, however, what goes in this country sometimes is absolutely disgusting. Unfortunately there are still many narrow minded people living on these islands and maybe too many of them.
Daphne wrote: “I hope the producers go ahead and that they don’t buckle under this kind of unacceptable policing of what we may and may not see. ……
Adrian Buckle, if you’re out there, can you post an update, please?”
Nomen est Omen, but I hope that Adrian Buckle will indeed not buckle.
Go, Adrian, Go!
The Bible also contains some pieces which seem to describe child abuse, both physical and sexual (some Bibles even have such pictures). So one can argue that anyone promoting the Bible are actually encouraging the peddling of paedophilia in their churches, homes and schools.
[Daphne – Yes, I’ve always found it astonishing that torture and cruelty are not considered frightening and traumatic and grisly and ghastly when dressed up as religion. Practically every Maltese child grows up in a home and school where an essential fixture is a depiction of a man being tortured to death on a wooden cross. So that’s OK. Then we come to the bible stories: Abraham about to slash his young son Isaac’s throat, stopped only by divine interjection; a woman being stoned to death by a crowd of her neighbours because she had sex with somebody who was not her husband; lepers with their skin peeling off, kept in caves so that they don’t infect others….]
Hi Daphne.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that you’ve posted a new piece about this ridiculous matter. You have quoted author Anthony Neilson and I have little more to add at the moment. All I can say is that I still need to come across a REAL reason for banning the play. The reasons put forth so far are ridiculous, misinterpretations or quotes taken completely out of context.
One might not like the kind of theatre I stage, but that is my business. I stage the plays and funding comes completely out of my pocket. I want to stage plays that have something worthwhile to say, that can hold a mirror to society, that reflect the truth. It seems that some people are not happy with that and prefer the ‘Mary Poppins’ type of play. I’ve got nothing against that. There are plenty of similar plays throughout the theatre season. But I want to do theatre I believe in. And if that is controversial, if having something to say is controversial, then I am a controversial person.
As for the update, there isn’t much to add that wasn’t already in the media. We have filed a judicial protest and are waiting for replies. We insist that this ban is unjust and that it should be lifted.
In the meantime, we plan our next move.
from Father Joe Borg’s blog… and he’s one of the sensible ones, or so I thought.
_________________________________________________
“For your discussion and comments I will mention three different grounds that could possibly justify the banning of the play. A play can be banned because it is blasphemous. Do you think that this quote from the play qualifies as a possible ground for banning it?
Stu: So if you are a whore, I can hire you again; can’t I? … pause …What about Sunday?
Abby: Sunday’s the Lord’s day.
Stu: ***** (I interpret: Stu used the “F” word in direct reference to God.)
A play can be banned because it shows grave disrespect to the victims of the Holocaust. In another scene Stu says that the first time he masturbated was while looking at “naked women in a line, waiting to go into a gas chamber.” He gives other details which I will skip since because of their crudeness. Isn’t this awful? Isn’t this utterly obscene?
A play can be banned because it shows gross bad taste and makes the most indecent proposals. This time it is Abby’s turn to shock. Don’t read if you don’t want to be shocked.
Abby. I’d like us to hurt someone together. I’d like us to abduct a child and f*** it and burn it and kill it.
She continues saying that she would like to see Stu sexually abuse (I have to paraphrase as the details in the script are too graphic to reproduce here even if I use a lot of asterisks.) the mothers of these murdered children while she films the abuse. And she continues:
Abby: and then we could put the films on the web and sell them.
How on earth can anyone describe the banning of such rubbish as a crime against democracy?”
[Daphne – I don’t know where to begin. And this is from a specialist in media and communications. There are so many fundamental errors, non sequiturs and illogical trains of thought that I am aghast. It really shows how difficult it is to be a priest and reason like a non-cleric – it is actually impossible. At some point, there is going to be a problem.]
I’ve just been helping my 11-year-old daughter to study for her Religion mid-term exam tomorrow, and I quote from her text book…”Bid-demm tal-haruf kull familja Lhudija kellha ccappas il-blata u l-bieb tad-dar bid-demm. Matul il-lejl kellu jghaddi l-Mulej u jidrob lill-iben il-kbir ta’ kull familja Egizzjana. Meta l-Mulej jara il-bibien tal-familji Lhud imcappsa bid-demm kellu jibqa ghaddej u ma jaghmilx hsara lil dik il-familja” and “….il Poplu Lhudi ddejjaq jimxi u beda jgerger kontra Alla u kontra Mose. Bhala kastig Alla baghat sriep velenuzi li bdew jigdmuhom u mietu hafna mill-Poplu Lhudi.”
[Daphne – That strikes me as far worse than anything banned by the Censorship Board. But because our cultural perception of it is ‘good’, we cannot see it for the hideous violence it really is. Another example: we shiver and shake at the thought of a ‘blekmas’ in which Satanists drink blood, not stopping to think that this is precisely what is supposed to happen at a Catholic mass, and after that everyone eats a piece of somebody’s body, except that it isn’t, but we have to have faith that it is. It’s all right to pack children’s minds with such horrendous and violent rubbish, but then adults are not allowed to see a play with ‘rude things’ in it – the very same adults who can spend their days and nights downloading child porn freely over the internet, or searching for videos of women being strangled and mutilated for real.]
[Daphne – I don’t know where to begin. And this is from a specialist in media and communications. There are so many fundamental errors, non sequiturs and illogical trains of thought that I am aghast. It really shows how difficult it is to be a priest and reason like a non-cleric – it is actually impossible. At some point, there is going to be a problem.]
Deus fecit.
My short comment also applies to other clergymen, whose goal in life is to seek the limelight in Lilliput Malta.
Sometimes (all the time?) this rock continues to ‘stitch’ me up.
It is disingenuous of Fr Joe Borg to avoid mentioning that the very next line, after the lines he quotes, is:
“Shut up. Don’t talk shite!”
Taking lines and quoting them selectively, while removing the context? Well, they do say that even the devil can quote scripture to his advantage.
@Leo Said
“Deus fecit”
Is there need for such foul language dearest Leo?
This is a bit off-subject but how come babies are baptised in Malta without their consent, and yet, as an adult, if you try and ex-communicate youself (as I tried unsuccessfully recently) you are confronted with all sorts of red-tape by the Curia. Should there not be an an easy “opt-out” clause from the Church? You’re not even allowed to vote till you’re 18 and yet as a baby you are signed up to a religion for life, and if it happens to be the wrong God you’re destined to an eternity of fire and brimstone, for no fault of your own.
[Daphne – Why on earth would you want all the high-camp drama of excommunication? Can’t you just stop being a Catholic?]
Lino Cert asked: “Is there need for such foul language dearest Leo?
Which foul language?
Your distaste for anything Italian hit a high with your rubbishing Roberto Benigni’s masterpiece “La vita e` bella” This film received seven Academy Award nominations, including those for Best Film and Best Director and won the Best Foreign Language Film and Best Actor Award for Benigni in 1998. It also won tha Grand Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival.
Here are some samples of what eminet film critics had to say about the film:
“Life Is Beautiful” is not about Nazis and Fascists, but about the human spirit. It is about rescuing whatever is good and hopeful from the wreckage of dreams. About hope for the future. About the necessary human conviction, or delusion, that things will be better for our children than they are right now.
Roger Ebert – Chicago –Sun Times
Benigni effectively creates a situation in which comedy is courage. And he draws from this an unpretentious, enormously likable film that plays with history both seriously and mischievously. Piety has no place here, nor do tears until the final reel. “Life is Beautiful” plays by its own rules.
Janet Maslin – New York Times
It’s an ambitious film by an exceptional comic talent. It’s a sincere effort, not an ego trip by a performer trying to expand his range, and there are moments that are genuinely funny, and others that are harrowing. –
Mick La Salle San Francisco Chronicle
I know that tastes are subjective and there is no arguing your likes and dislikes but to write off “La vita e` bella” as “offensively frivolous material” is a little bit too much.
[Daphne – You don’t know me if you think that I feel distaste for ‘anything Italian’. There are very few aspects of Italian culture for which I feel distaste, but they are major ones, including the inability to deal with reality, which means that it is invariably coated in ten layers of melodramatic honey, as epitomised by this particular film. And Benigni is an immensely irritating person who thinks of himself as an amusing person, and it shows. People who go around thinking ‘I am so amusing’ rarely are. And yes, he is definitely a try-hard poor imitation of Woody Allen. He even tries to look that way.
What I consider “a little bit too much” is a fantasy about life in the concentration camps, a sort of Walt Disney approach to how a father and son got by in Auschwitz, or wherever. I don’t think so, I’m afraid. I am unable to watch realistic concentration-camp films because they derail me emotionally, but I am even more unable to contemplate a film which distorts the reality in those camps, removes the gruesomeness and replaces it with entirely the wrong sort of sugary emotion: The Champ in Bergen Belsen. Have you noticed that all the critics you quote are American? It’s not a coincidence. If you want a good concentration-camp film, with the hideousness implied but not denied or depicted, you have to watch The Reader. Now that’s what I call the real thing, and if you think I prefer Daniel Day-Lewis to Benigni because the one is English and the other Italian, you need to have your head examined. One is a brilliant actor and the other is a cafe-clown.
Read between these lines, for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/1999/jan/29/awardsandprizes
And these:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/comedy-of-terror-benigni-follows-life-is-beautiful-with-farce-set-in-iraq-war-548224.html
And here’s a sensible American:
http://bostonreview.net/BR24.2/stone.html
Daphne,
Totally agree. A clown. Walking on the chairbacks at the Oscars? Soooo Sunday afternoon Italian TV.
[Daphne – And turning up wearing doss-down clothes to a ceremony at which he was given an honorary doctorate by the University of Malta, then tumbling down the steps (oh ha ha jolly ha, hysterical) and landing at the president’s feet? Such fun. I imagine you have to be a (certain kind of) Italian to appreciate the humour.]
@ Daphne : I tried to find your contribution about the “fundamental errors, non sequiturs and illogical trains of thought” on Fr Joe’s blog. By any chance, were your comments censored by the ToM?
If you were censored you can always write about them on your blog.
Benigni was applauded in Israel for La Vita e’ Bella , he wasn’t crude his work was sublime.
“…….as the credits rolled, everyone in the cinema – including Holocaust survivors – leapt to their feet and gave him a standing ovation.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/137217.stm
[Daphne – I didn’t post any comments on his blog; that’s why you can’t find them. I said that I didn’t know where to begin, and I really don’t. Some of the issues are so fundamental, such truisms, that it wearies me to even think of going through them again. I just can’t believe he is approaching the matter from the very dangerous stand-point of ‘I don’t agree with it, I disapprove of it, therefore I will ban it.’ The next step, logically, is banning political ideas you don’t agree with/don’t approve of, ditto with religious ideas, cultural forms, ‘destabilising influences’ and so on. It’s really no different to the Soviets banning plays that gave a favourable impression of life and democracy in the west, but Fr Joe doesn’t seem able to see that, strangely. Nor is it any different to the stance taken by certain Islamic states in banning performances that cause ‘offence to Islam’. We look down on that kind of behaviour then do the same ourselves.
You are welcome to your views about Benigni and his film. There is a welter of criticism from people who view both him and his film as I do. Check the internet, but go for the reputable media sites. I’ve posted some links beneath an addendum to Ray Borg’s comment. My favourite is the description of him in The Guardian. I suppose Benigni just doesn’t translate into British culture, and I’m not surprised at that. I can’t see Stephen Fry translating into Italian culture, either. It might be the reason why those Maltese people who think Benigni is brilliant rather than irritating and totally up his own backside are the ones who are immured in what they think is Italian culture, but is only a peculiarly Maltese view of it, coloured by politics and prejudice.]
Daphne
You missed my point. Let me repeat. I know that tastes are subjective and there is no argument about your likes and dislikes. The same goes for critcs` varying views on films, books, art, music etc. What pleases some does not necessarily go well with others. I am not going into a debate about Benigni’s film but I cannot agree with you that “la vita e` bella” distorts reality. Don’t you think that there were also moments of humour in concentration camps? Read Primo Levi’s book “Moments of Repreive” and you will find out. (Primo Levi was a survivor of Auchwitz). If you are into films try and get your hands on “Jacob the Liar” with Robin Williams and you shall find a big similarity with Benigni’s film although its story is set in a Polish ghetto and not in a concentration camp. Yes I saw “The Reader” and it is a great film but you cannot say that it is a film about life in concentration camps.
Your comparison between Daniel Day Lewis and Roberto Benigni is out of place. They are both brilliant in their own genres. One is a brilliant dramatic actor and the other is a brilliant comedian who recites Dante to packed theatres, sports arenas and city squares all over Italy. We had the good fortune to see him at the university. You must have missed him. Otherwise you would not write him off as a cafe-comic. But then again, tastes are subjective.
[Daphne – Humour is not subjective as such, but it is linked entirely to culture. No, I don’t find Benigni remotely interesting or entertaining, still less amusing or hilarious. His kind of humour leaves me cold. On the other hand, I have just been rereading David Sedaris and crying silently with laughter. Before you ask, he’s American, not British. It just doesn’t translate into Italian and if Roberto Benigni were to read Sedaris, I suspect he just wouldn’t get it. It’s deadpan, you see, and the Italians just don’t do deadpan, but it’s pretty much the only kind of humour that works for me. Primo Levi killed himself after battling depression for most of his life, so I suppose there weren’t that many moments of humour in Auschwitz, and if there were, then it would have been black humour, but I suppose Benigni doesn’t get that, either. You repeat, I repeat: read that piece in The Guardian. What the writer is saying between the lines is “Here is a self-obsessed ridiculous little man who thinks he’s the dogs’ bollocks and who believes I’m going to find him amusing because he gesticulates, hams up the foreignness and blows raspberries, and who has brought his adoring wife along to praise him in that embarrassing over-the-top way that people like Italians do, and who, for some reason, has met with widespread approval outside his native Italy, God knows why- but you know, his film is ‘wonderful’ (I had to say that, because there are limits).]
How cowardly. S/he insults me and doesn’t leave a name. Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion – freedom of speech and choice an’ all that jazz – but DO leave a name if you’re going to be rude. Ah well, just for the record – cowards make me sick. People who insult me, on the other hand, I quite admire.
I’m not going to contribute to the debate of whether this play is obscene or vulgar or high art as the narrow-mindedness on this island has quite shocked me. All I’ll say is that the play IS a beautiful, tragic, love story. Watch it – don’t watch it – doesn’t make a difference. It is what it is. And it WILL be shown – that’s a promise.
In 2005, an Interim Report, Study on Co-Regulatory Measures in the Media Sector, Study for the European Commission,Directorate Information Society, Unit A1: Audiovisual and Media Policies, Digital Rights, Task Force on Coordination of Media Affairs, Tender DG EAC 03/04, Contract No.: 2004-5091/001-001 DAVBST concludes the following about Malta (which includes theatre as well):
“The Maltese media regulation is predominantly characterised by a traditional command and control approach taken by the state and expressed by means of legislation.”
This is how an official interim report drafted in Hamburg looks at our system. We can snub it as a pseudo-intellectual claim and perhaps even argue that our system is endemic and should be respected as such. But seeing the rest of Europe thinking otherwise, putting it in a different perspective, should at least make you think outside an island environment, look at traditional regulation vis-a-vis globalisation. The same report concludes:
“Moreover, traditional regulation does not seem to stimulate creative activities effectively. Initiatives, innovation and commitment cannot be imposed by law
Given that modern regulation has to rely on co-operation with the objects of regulation to achieve its objectives, this is becoming another significant factor.”
I don’t know whether this comment under timesofmalta.com’s report of Ms Teresa Friggieri’s statement is by the renowned jurist, Prof. Ian Refalo:
Ian Refalo (5 hours, 26 minutes ago)
The question that needs to be asked is whether the “Board of Film and Stage Certification” has the right to censor in the first place. As far as I understand it, its remit is to certify, and certify only. Fine, put a nice big AO sign on every bit of advertising, make it amply clear that there are scenes that can offend public morals, and so forth, but leave it at that. Talk about big brother!
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090216/local/stitching-is-an-insult-from-beginning-to-end-board-chairman.
I have looked up the Cinema and Stage Regulations and there is no reference to BANNING stage performances. The legal notice states:
“It shall be the function of the Board to classify films andstage productions on the basis of guidelines to be drawn up by the Board based on the following main criteria:
(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and
(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit, if any, of the production; and
(c) the general character of the production including
whether it is of medical, legal or scientific character;
and
(d) the person or class of persons to whom it is intended or
by whom the production is likely to be viewed.
I wonder whether Ms Friggieri, in her eagerness to ensure the law is observed, has actually exceeded her powers…
[Daphne – It might well be, given that Professor Ian Refalo has agreed to take on a constitutional case against the ban. But then again, I know at least one other Ian Refalo. I somehow don’t think the lawyer would be posting comments like ‘Talk about big brother!’.]
Daphne –
“It might well be, given that Professor Ian Refalo has agreed to take on a constitutional case against the ban. But then again, I know at least one other Ian Refalo. I somehow don’t think the lawyer would be posting comments like ‘Talk about big brother!’.”
I have put The Times website to the test, as it were. I posted a non-controversial comment to a non-controversial letter but using a false name (J.Borg), a false email address and a false telephone number. Nobody checked and it was published. (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090216/letters/what-to-do-at-dock-1).
I just wanted to prove that it is possible to use a false name to post a comment on that website and this could be the case with the comment attributed (possibly) to Dr Ian Refalo.
It is true that Dr Refalo could ask the manager of the website to remove a comment if it was necessary but suppose he is unaware that a comment has been posted using his name. I hate ranting but have to say this: whoever is running The Times’s website seems not to have the necessary experience to know how much malice and cunning people display when they want to deceive, especially online.