It's not about Stitching

It’s not about whether Stitching should have been banned or not. It’s about whether the state should be banning plays in an EU member state in 2009. I like this letter.

The Sunday Times, 15 March

Policy as censorship (1)
Michael Fenech, Chairman, Fondazzjoni Centru għall-Kreattività, Valletta

Every year, since I have been chairman of the Fondazzjoni Ċentru għall-Kreattività, the launch of its programme around September has been accompanied by a policy statement outlining not only what we are planning to do, but also why we chose that particular programme, justifying it in terms of our mission statement.

This focuses on the foundation’s role as a catalyst for the contemporary art scene in Malta, as well as a hub where people can join in the enriching act of creativity. As a Centre for Creativity we have been very careful to link creativity with science, medicine and industry (among others) and not just with ‘art’.

Since its inception, the centre has seen the demand on its resources grow to such an extent that it risked becoming all things to all men. So we had to be clear about the roles of the Centre for Creativity. These include an active policy to support the local artist, to nurture and present new ideas, new concepts and new experiences to the public and also to seek out and create diversified audiences and increase accessibility to the arts. Another role is offering the public a window on the creative and artistic contemporary world. The centre has also been at the forefront of the discussions on a sustainable policy for the Arts in Malta. Given the limited resources, the board of the Foundation for Creativity has been very clear about where to place the emphasis of its programming.

In the theatre, this has meant a great increase in children’s theatre, in plays by Maltese authors in socially-aware theatre, in theatre aimed specifically at youths, in theatre for people with disabilities and also a more secular, contemporary form of theatre. Plays by the most important contemporary and classic modern authors have been a regular part of our programme.

The discussion on the banning of Stitching brings to the fore important issues apart from the obvious ones of artistic freedom. What is the role of the state as regards what is to be allowed? The state is bound by its democratic credentials to safeguard not only the interests of the (possibly vociferous) majority, not only to give space and resources to the popular, traditional and safe artistic expressions, but also, through institutes such as the Centre for Creativity, to provide for artists that challenge, maybe upset, and are not in the mainstream.

It is, for example, immediately clear how the theatre in Malta has, over many years, been starved of funds in such a way as to rely practically exclusively on either the support of the state or the Church. Private initiative is practically non-existent and where there is some it is only concerned with the commercial viability of the performed works. The Church is a private institution and entitled to control the use of its theatres – which it does very well. The State does not have that luxury.

Not allowing a ‘certain type’ of play to be performed at St James Cavalier, as the Board of Classification would have it, is as subtle, but extremely effective, censorship as there can ever be. Non-commercial plays, which treat issues of contemporary relevance have, as things stand, to be supported first and foremost by the state.

As a board we have tried to make our thoughts on the issue of censorship known to the competent authorities, without getting into a public polemic. We have recommended to our minister responsible for culture, as well as to the minister responsible for the Board of Classification, a review of the laws regulating theatre censorship to bring us in line with European practice. In this we are mirroring the recommendations made by the Council of Europe eight years ago.

Theatre censorship is the last bastion of an old-fashioned, patronising state. It has also become an increasingly impractical tool for the state to wield. What does one do with stand-up comedy and political satire?

They say every cloud has a silver lining. The Foundation for Creativity feels it is the right time to take the opportunity to start a long overdue rational and sensible debate on the subject, leading to an overhaul of existing legislation.