Stitching update
Published:
March 4, 2009 at 8:55pm
The producers of the play Stitching yesterday filed a Constitutional case against the chairman of the Censorship Board, the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney-General. The case has been appointed for hearing before Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon.
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I thought they were going to stage the play anyway. Why don’t they go ahead and defy the ban like they said they were going to? This is starting to look like a publicity stunt at this point.
They should find a makeshift theatre – even a garage – put up the play and then go to whatever court is necessary if they are charged. If it’s not a publicity stunt than it seems that Mr Buckle and his troupe are not so eager to stick out their necks for the sake of freedom of expression.
@ Antoine Vella. Adrian and co have invited some people to watch a series of rehearsals in private homes in order to get opinions and feedback about the play. There have been a few letters to the press about these rehearsals. As far as I know, going ahead with performances and breaking the law would have jeopardised the case. At this point I believe they want to go ahead with the case which will hopefully lead to a change in the law – they are not just using it as a cheap publicity stunt. Maybe Adrian and co can clarify, but I would think that with the case now before a judge they are not in a position to comment.
The case could take years and it would be old news by then. I don’t know anything about theatre but from the little I know about lobbying, I’d say that there would be a much stronger impact on public opinion if the victim of censorship were to be an actual person rather than a play. I suppose the producer wants to avoid his sympathisers having to organise a ‘Free Adrian Buckle’ campaign.
@ Antoine Vella
Could party politics in Malta be a reason for this farcical impasse?
I prefer not to comment on the case but just for Mr Antoine Vella’s satisfaction, I’d like him to know that I have better ways to spend my money, rather than waste them on a court case. I went to court only because I felt it was the best way forward. As for the supposed publicity stunt, what’s the use of a publicity stunt if I don’t stage the play? Believe me, this is no publicity stunt.
@Adrian Buckle
Wishing you every success.
Adrian Buckle
Ok, I accept that it’s not a publicity stunt. What I cannot understand is that you have gone to court because you don’t want to waste money on a court case.
Does it not occur to you that, perhaps, if you stage the play, the authorities would close an eye? It’s a possibility. If, on the other hand, you are charged and risk a heavy fine or jail, it would be a very strong indictment against censorship in Malta. Many would see you as a victim of intolerance and there would be a swell of indignation which would help bring about changes in the system. I’m not being sarcastic but sometimes progress needs martyrs.
Ultimately, the question is: what price are you willing to pay to uphold your principles?
PS. For the record, the fact that the court is now dealing with the case does not preclude you from commenting on it, should you wish to do so.
We all know that the”dress rehearsal” of the play has already been viewed by a selected audience. Is that the way one can go round the law? One of my friends described it as a “love story”. From the pictures I saw of the Nadur carnival in last Sunday’s It-Torca, the authorities can allow children to watch Stitches. What’s the use of not letting adults watch a shocking play when other people are left to insult other people’s feelings with children present.
@Adrian Buckle/Antoine Vella
One could also form a temporary production company and open up membership of the board to the general public. Assuming a few hundred of us sign up (myself included) and you stage the play – well, its an awful lot of people to prosecute…….and we won’t ask for voting rights on artistic issues, I promise.