Oh, weren’t we given to understand that it was all “the conservative government’s” fault?
The ‘Stitching’ case has been taken to the European Court of Human Rights. I’m astonished. I was given to understand, when the fuss broke out a couple of years ago, that it was the horrendous conservative government’s fault, and that voting for Joseph would solve this terrible problem.
It seems Joseph has let down the producers, who voted Labour. While he was pretty quick to amend the law so that Joanne Cassar can marry the fiance she doesn’t appear to have, he has taken no such steps to change the law so that adults can watch any play they please.
But then he was never much into theatre, was he – or freedom of expression.
You got what you voted for, boys. You just didn’t believe me when I said so. This is a total Philistine with the democratic spirit of Joe Stalin, except that he’s not in Soviet Russia so is somewhat constrained.
11 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Isn’t the would-be producer a fresh recruit in the Ministry, sorry, parliamentary secretariat, of culture?
You vote Joseph (Muscat or otherwise), you get Joseph, nothing more, nothing less. So no freedom of expression for you.
And shame on you for thinking otherwise.
It will be Soviet Russia once Malta opts to leave the EU (right after the UK). There will be no safeguards and checks (MLP read constraints) then.
That ‘right after the UK’ has got me thinking, is that why Joseph would like to warm up to Cameron? For advice/support on leaving the EU?
Ghadhom jeqirdu dawn? Paranoia, wahda wara l-ohra.
“Hudu go fikom, switchers, errm, stitchers.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130628/local/armier.475762
Different state of affairs here. PM Joseph is advising them to appeal.
Dear Daphne,
I must admit I am rather perplexed with your comment.
Perhaps I can refresh your memory:
1. With regards to whether it was ‘ the horrendous conservative government’s fault’ that the play was banned is a matter which is open to discussion.
However it is a fact that there were a number of mp’s plus at least one minister who remained adamantly in favour of the ban and theatre censorship per se despite the fact that as early as 2002 the Council of Europe had warned the government that theatre censorship was anathema in a democratic country.
2. It was a minister from within the same ‘conservative government’, although, admittedly, from the liberal wing of that government, who had the good sense to change the law after some deep and fruitful consultation with the parties concerned.
3. Dr Mario de Marco’s intervention, however, came too late for our cause as we had already seen the constitutional court pass judgement against us not once but twice.
4. That because of this judgement, despite the changes in the law passed by Dr de Marco, our play cannot be performed as it is deemed ‘obscene’ by the Constitutional Court and performing it would in effect be a challenge to the court and a criminal offence.
5. That at this stage we have no other recourse but to go to the ECHR both because of the principle involved (I do not take kindly to being labelled a pornographer) and because, frankly, we have spent tens of thousands of euros on this case, money we can ill-afford. (On the other hand I am proud to say that our efforts, and also, it must be said, your efforts, in this matter, has help bring about changes in the law. However it came at a great personal cost to us).
6. I would be shocked, as you seem to imply, if the PM were to intervene at this stage as it would mean that the PM can overturn a sentence passed by the Constitutional Court of Appeal.
We had always said (as we had a good inkling that that would be the case) that if necessary we would have to take our case to the ECHR. This is the natural conclusion of our now three and a half year saga.
PS I am writing this in my personal capacity
[Daphne –
1. I think you will find that there were and still are more MPs on the Labour side of the house who approve of banning any form of communication, be it written, broadcast or performed, which they do not understand but of which they know they disapprove. I am against any such ban, as you know, unless it intrinsically and of itself is a true crime: i.e. child pornography.
2. Ministers do not change laws. That is a media fiction. The legislative body is parliament, not the government, and still less a single cabinet minister. The reason a government is seen as the legislator, rather than parliament, is becauase it has the majority of seats. But it is not the legislator. That is why an MP was able to bring a divorce bill before the house. Perhaps you should have asked yourself why Joseph Muscat, as Opposition leader, never brought before the house a private member’s bill for the abrogation of our censorhip law, or the most offensive parts of it. I certainly did.
3. The problem here, Chris, is that the lot of you are basically cowards with more mouth than guts. What you should have done is go right ahead and perform that play and challenge the authorities to do their worst. The government wouldn’t have done anything, but the police would have arrested you. And that would have given you a far stronger case in court because it would have introduced a fresh element of human rights abuse. I told your people that at the time, but as I said, too cowardly and basically, the sort of spirit on which communist regimes were built. Now that you have a Luvvie-Friendly Government, for which most of you – against all sense or reason – voted, and also a Police Minister who has the police cooking and serving at his banquets, might I suggest you go right ahead and perform Stitching now. Nobody is going to arrest you. The Police Commissioner will be too busy plating sea bass.
4. Oh, my, a criminal offence, did you say? Ref 3 above. There are such things as bad laws, Chris, and they have, throughout history, been challenged in the breach. You had a very good example of how it is done, from me on election eve, when two senior officers from the homicide squad and the CID turned up with a warrant for my arrest, because I had posted videos about Joseph Muscat on this website on election eve. The law I ‘broke’ is in itself illegal: it is unConstitutional. As I said, you lot are cowards – brave enough to perform Stitching but not brave enough to perform it in adversity.
5. My efforts? What, by writing about it? If I could, I would put on the entire production single-handedly and show you how these things have to be done. It’s not as though you aren’t exactly my age and don’t remember. Imagine if all the parents of children at church schools had obeyed the government’s orders to send them to ‘Sandhurst’.
6. Nothing about Joseph Muscat appears to shock you. Being shocked after having helped bring him to power is way too late. Try this, why don’t you: put on an ‘illegal’ performance of Stitching and invite him to show solidarity with ‘his beliefs’ by being there. Then let’s see him put his money where his mouth is. Cowards all round. I’m sorry to say it, but really. I so disapprove. ]
Seriously Daphne get a grip.
We did perform it. In what we called staged rehearsals.
When we tried to find a venue in hotels or clubs (all theatres in Malta are either state-owned or Church-owned) we were turned down as teh oweners feared losing theire licence (Shades of Tanti Palmier,anyone?). When I tried to organise a staged rehearsal for the press in a state-owned theatre, the minister of culture came down on us like a tonne of bricks to ensure it was not rehearsed on government premises. we didn’t botehr with church theatres.
[Daphne – My point, Chris, was that you should try it now. I don’t care about then. This is the government your luvvy friends voted for, led by liberal and arts-loving, cultural Joseph, who now controls the state and all its theatres. Surely the man can give the order to one of his theatres to allow the play to be staged? After all, he’s done far more to accommodate his friends, like removing one police commissioner and installing another so that John Dalli can celebrate with holy mass.]
So we performed it in people’s homes, travelling form living room to living room. It was seen by approximately 200 people.
Sixty signed up to be witnesses in the trial which the judge asked us to wittle down to six and which, in his judgement summary, he promptly disregarded.
If by performing you mean put it on in the streets, that is not a victory but a defeat. It is tantamount to giving an audience a physical 355mm print of a film and asking them to enjoy it. It defeats the whole purpose of our argument which was that a play was not a script but a complete production.This production needed a theatre. Give me a theatre to perform in and I will perform it. But I refuse to continue eating humble pie any more and ‘make do’. We did that once. I refuse to bow down to a bunch of moronic half-wits to poduce a half-baked ‘sensational’ event. That is not art, that is not theatre. Enough is enough. This is not some kind of grand-standing. Besides that is now not the point.
The main point of going to court was to change what was, I agree, a bad law. At this same time it showed up just how illiterate our judges and so called intellectual dwarves a la Teresa Friggieri really are. This we did. I hope that when your case comes up, teh same thing will happen. And if it doesn’t then we must make sure that it does.
[Daphne – Oh do give it a rest, Chris. So Theresa Friggieri is an intellectual dwarf, is she? And her sister Jane Marshall, camping about in that Malta Taghna Lkoll video like a charlatan in a headmistress outfit, all in the interests of a job for her fat, useless loser of a husband is – what? An intellectual giant? Somebody with whom you share a political mission? I repeat: you (in the plural, re the arts and theatre crowd) got what you voted for. Now go and knock on his door and demand his support in your performance at a state theatre of your irritating play.]
But for now all i want do is to clear my name and my debts.
As for your last point, well frankly, I don’t know what to say. I don’t really know how you can presume what I think of Joseph Muscat’s 100 days in government. And I am even more amused if not amazed that you seem to be under the impression that i helped Joseph Muscat become PM in any way or form. I am beginning to sense the makings of a contemporary McCarthy,seeing reds under every bed.
[Daphne – Not so, Chris. By ‘you’ I meant the entire arts and theatre crowd, and not you personally, though quite frankly I have my doubts about anybody who can’t actually bring himself to say ‘I did not vote for Muscat’. As for the rest of the crowd, the bitching was so loud and so public that nobody could miss it. Or miss the fact that this crowd was targetted particularly. And isn’t Adrian the main man in this enterprise? Well, he definitely voted Labour – he even gave Muscat some kind of testimonial. So there you go then. Time to call in some favours. This government loves that kind of thing, apparently.]
Let me just say taht when it came to the crunch I closed my eyes and thought of Malta ( Admittedly I was also wearing a large clothes peg on my nose)
[Daphne – Oh indeed, well then you must have voted for that crock of shit led by a Super One reporter and including vermin like Karmenu Vella. I can’t imagine why anybody would want to hold their nose when voting for the political party that made Malta a fairly civilised EU member state and helped show us what normal life is.]
I repeat the ECHR case is there to clear our (and Malta’s) name and hopefully get some of our money back. Our main job is already done, ie getting rid of Teresa and her ilk. I don’t think there is anything cowardly in that.
[Daphne – Great job, Chris. A real bright spark. You got rid of Theresa and…landed us with her Godawful sister and husband. Full marks.]
Daphne did you challenge the so called unconstitutional law in Court?
[Daphne – I’m still waiting to be charged.]
I love it. Great idea. Go on, Chris, take up Daphne’s suggestion and invite Joseph to a performance of your play.
Chances are you will have a total sell-out and he won’t be able to resist the opportunity to be seen and to be seen supporting the ‘liberal’ crowd.
I’ll come too just to watch the expressions on his face as he watches the show.