Anti-censorship front regrets court ruling that will open ‘wave of censorship’
The newly formed Front Against Censorship has expressed its shock at the ruling given by the Constitutional Court yesterday in the case brought by the producers of Stitching, against the classification board.
29 June 2010, 12:00am
Matthew Vella
Matthew Vella
3 min read
The play, produced by Unifaun productions, was banned by the classification board, which is chaired by Therese Friggieri, for its use of blasphemy and its portrayal of the Holocaust.
In his 82-page judgment, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon said “without hesitation” that the board had acted correctly and pointed out that the values of a country could not be turned upside down simply in the name of freedom of expression.
He said it was unacceptable in a “democratic society founded on the rule of law” for any person, no matter what they did, to be allowed to swear in public – even in a theatre as part of a script. “According to our law, the very fact that a person swears in public, regardless of the reason, is a contravention... So if the court allows this in a democratic society, it would be discriminating (against those who are punished for swearing in public).”
The anti-censorship front said today that the court’s reasoning that social considerations
should prevail over the right of the artist to express himself in the way he desired, assumed that people’s convictions should be protected from any offence. “Attending a play is a wilful act and thus one is not exposed to offensive material unless one deliberately chooses to be exposed to it.”
The front also took issue with the court’s belief that ‘depravity’ was incompatible with ‘Maltese civilisation’. “The Front is extremely doubtful how a play could have the potential to ‘turn the values of society upside down’… and whether a society which censors the wilful viewing of art by adults deserves to be called civilised.”
“The Front wishes to show its solidarity with Unifaun theatre company, and fears that this ruling will trigger a new wave of censorship on the arts. The way the law is applied has a normative effect and strongly affects public perception of what is moral and what is not. The Front fears that this ruling does not help create a more open Maltese society, and it will only fuel the intolerance already present in it. To this end the Front declares that it will be increasing its pressure for legislative reform, which includes denying the classification board the power of censuring theatre displays for adults.”
The producers of the play Stitching have declared they will appeal from the court judgement, and that if necessary, even take the case before the European Court.
The civil court declared that blasphemy and vulgar language should not be tolerated in public, not even in plays. The controversial play, written by Scottish playwright Anthony Neilson, has been performed in several countries.
Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon said there was nothing unreasonable in the board’s actions to observe the country’s laws and view the play as “an offence to the whole culture of the country”.
“No matter how tumultuous the relationship of the couple was, extensive use of vulgar, obscene and blasphemous language that exalts perversion, vilifies the right to life... makes fun of the suffering of women in the Holocaust, and reduces women to a simple object of sexual satisfaction... cannot be used.”
Matthew Vella, a freelance journalist at MaltaToday, was formerly executive editor at Malt...
•
His Honour must mix in different circles to the ones I mix in when I visit Malta. The trouble with judges is that they are chosen by politicians and not infrequently politicians select judges in their own image. It is becoming increasingly embarrassing to be Maltese given the stupidity that is coming out of Maltese institutions. Nobody is forcing people to go to theatre. And how bloody sensitive are Maltese living in Malta? Fragile things they are! I disagree with Wenzu who says that the Church is pulling all the strings to make sure Malta remains firmly set in the 20th century. The 20th century? Try much earlier.
Keith Goodlip •
Unfortunately, Malta's main unelected political party- The catholic church- is pulling ALL the strings to ensure that this country remains firmly established in the twelfth century.
Norman Buckle •
Mr. Vassallo, the paragraph immediately before my last dollar bet, in my lastest post, answers completely your opening question. ☺
Your link to the judgement is broken. Please ask your webmaster to add the code to make it work. If he were to point it directly to the actual webpage, it would be greatly appreciated.
I would dearly love to read the judgement, assuming that it is in English, or in Maltese that I can understand ... because, if it is written in the bastardized Maltese used by the contemporary journalists of the partisan press, I'll puke. Grrrr ... ☻ ☻ ☻
My point, in all this, is that, "the imaginary Catholic fantasy", is in fact, reality; so much so that it is enshrined in the Constitution -- the supreme Law of Malta.
The Law is stacked against you -- by "you", I mean the writers and artists who are affected by Maltese law.
Despair? No way! Can't beat them? Join them!
What if Unifaun, the "Front", APAP were to become the pious, ultra-Catholic zealots for one day? And ... organize a day for the 'mass' burning of books, under the full glare of TV cameras for all the world to witness, at, say, the Granaries.
If your members were to each buy a 'bad' book -- the ones that can be found on the bookshelves of a public library, or at bookstores, or at newsstands; bring it to the burning ceremony, read out the section which contravenes Maltese obscenity laws, 'sentence' it to eternal damnation, and then dump it onto the raging bonfire.
I am sure that the folks from APAP will render a flawless 'execution' of the 'holy proceedings'. It will be the greatest show since the visit of the Pope. Maybe even bigger!
Make it a yearly affair, until the ridiculous laws are repealed.
Oh yes, I forgot ... you'll need a Police permit to hold the show. Hmm, wonder what will happen if the Police refused to issue the permit to hold a holy event?
Just a thought!
Albert Zammit •
Raphael, ... minghalik m'intix tifhimni. Ahjar nieqaf hawn. Pero, tippruvax tbellghali r-ross bil-labbra!!! Mhux lili!
carmel duca •
Nonsense. You have as much access to the media as anyone else - in fact you have posted more comments on this site than anyone to date.
Perhaps you should decide what it is you actually want - if a reversal of the Court's decision would 'overjoy' you, then it makes no sense whatsoever to also defend the same Court decision. You can't run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. (well, actually you can try, but it doesn't usually work out too well for either hounds or hares)
Albert Zammit •
Well, if, as it is being stated by the two bright sparks we have here, that the judge in question was 'idiotic', then, the Court of Appeal, or, if it comes to that, the ECHR or other Court will outdo him and reverse the decision, and RAPHAEL, you who are being so affective with your staunch penchant to name-calling and lack of logic, as well as with the ability (?) of arriving at the wrong conclusions (well, so is Carl, but anyway!), I assure you that I will be the first to be overjoyed.
'But you're not doing that, are you?' Well, let's just say that I am not up to your level, with media access with which you, due to your connections, have at your disposal.
And nothing else. :-)
carmel duca •
So you'll bet your last dollar, huh? Out of curiosity, Seajay.... have you even read the judgement? You will find a copy here: www.http:justice.gov.mt/ in the 'last 15 days' section.
I seriously suggest you read because it is plain as daylight that you are (by your own admission) merely assuming that the judge applied the law correctly. He did not, for reasons already outlined, and for others besides. One other I failed to mentioned earlier was the judge's observation that the play was 'incompatible' with Malta's values. This is an outrageous opinion that owes nothing to law and everything to the imaginary Catholic fantasy-world people like Zammit McKeon have holed themselves up in.
Furthermore it is clear from the ruling that ZMK simply picked and chose ECHR rulings which suited his purposes while ignoring all those that did not.
I would hold on to your bottom dollar if I were you, at least until all options are exhausted... including the ECHR itself, where this will definitely go if appeal is lost.
Norman Buckle •
Much that I enjoy a shot of bourbon or two, I must categorically state that drunkenness is not a hobby of mine, and I am too old to be a schoolboy, albeit young enough to embrace new learning. Thus, I accept Mr. Vassallo's barb as an example of utter frustration, which I would probably share if I were domiciled on the Island ... lucky me, I am not.
I am, very much, behind the objectives of the 'Front'.
I abhor censorship. I am, wholeheartedly, in favour of freedom of expression which I consider to be a fundamental human right. I loathe to having any authority hauling me to Court and possibly jailing me for having the audacity to sketch and publish, say, a cartoon depicting god as godzilla spitting flames of wrath at any puny mortal who dares to utter its name in vain (Censorshipians, please note: it's a lower-case gee, so as not to confuse it with Him, the One above the clouds).
For clarity's sake, I will add that, the right to freedom of expression is not a license to libel, nor to incite hatred. Neither is it a justification for violation of copyright.
My comments on this issue are based solely on what I have read in the Maltese media. There is no way for me to read the judgement in its entirety until it is published (the last I checked -- today -- the Ministry of Justice website was last updated in 2007).
Based on what has been reported, I would bet my last dollar that, (i) Mr. Justice Zammit McKeon's decision is __correct in law__; and (ii) Unifaun does not have leg to stand on to appeal the judgement.
Disagreeing with a judge's decision is not solid ground on which to base and win an appeal. There has to be solid argument(s) based on law. Justice McKeon did his homework. He cited three previous cases where the ECHR dismissed such complaints. Can Unifaun cite case law which contradicts the Judge's references? Can Unifaun point to a specific Article in the UDHR which he contradicted?
From what I have read in the press, the answers seem to be No and No.
Friends of Unifaun are not doing it a service by insulting Judge McKeon ... the Appeal will be heard by his peers. And should Unifaun proceed to the ECHR, they will be faced with the ECHR's previous decisions. Fat chance of winning there.
Prudence would dictate that, in the current Maltese milieu, it would be wise to focus on changing the offending laws ... the ones enslaving freedom of expression. Your elected representatives are the ones to canvas.
In Logic, name-calling is a cardinal sin. Or as we say, in the lower echelons, it's puerile.
FRANK MUSCAT •
You may have studied law (why else would you feel the need to point out that I didn't?) but in that case you're the proof that the law and logic are worlds apart. ... In fact too many of our legislators have studied law and share your logical deficit.
carmel duca •
Excellent - so it's 'irresponsible' to call an individual judge an 'idiot', but then it's perfectly OK to extend the same insult to the entire country. Fantastic logic, I must say.
Michael001, whoever you are, bear in mind also that the act of passing off blatant injustices as 'inevitabilities' (with arguments like 'can't be helped', 'it's the system', etc.) is tantamount to defending the injustice. If you think the system is flawed then it would make infinitely more sense to add your voice to those calling out for the same system to be changed. But you;re not doing that, are you?
Anyway, fortunately for the rest of us it seems some other people are at least voicing their dismay at what can only be described as a dangerously unsound ruling. There may be hope yet...
Albert Zammit •
Right, so what the hell are our representatives being paid for? To warm their seats in Parliament? Their DUTY is to legislate. Their DUTY is amend laws, to update them, to see that they are in conformity with the needs of the day!
Paul Dalli •
Blaming the system...a very good excuse to pardon ignorance! However I'm sure Mr Justice Zammit McKeon will want to take full responsibility of his decision and not blame it on the SYSTEM. It is he who has penned the decision...the SYSTEM did not hold his hand when writing it and neither did it tell him what to think and believe!
Using the same measure Mr Justice Zammit McKeon has adopted in this case, any play, film, piece of literature, form of art (including nearly all the paintings that embellish the ceilings of many Churches), need to be censored and brought to justice: (I re-phrased a bit the ruling)
It is unacceptable in a “democratic society founded on the rule of law” for any person, no matter what they did, to be allowed to APPEAR NUDE in public – even in a theatre as part of a script, OR IN A PAINTING. “According to our law, the very fact that a person APPEARS IN THE NUDE in public, regardless of the reason, is a contravention... So if the court allows this in a democratic society, it would be discriminating (against those who are punished for APPEARING IN THE NUDE in public).”
Albert Zammit •
Where have I, in any way, appeared to defend all the quagmire that you rightly speak about? I disagree with the form that is used. No, I maintain that it is not the Judge who is the 'idiot'. It is the system. It is the Government for after all it is the Govt that chooses what Judges we have. That is the kind of democracy that we are living in: one man, one individual, is absolute dictator for five years at a stretch because with no stretch of the imagination can you visualise a situation where he - or she! - will be outvoted in Parliament from within his/her own ranks, which is the only way to topple him/her. Well ... not even the Sant-Mintoff episode reached that far, for it was Sant's choice to call a snap-election. But that's by-the-by. And that individual, the Prime Minister, decides which persons are to sit in Court over us. So, theoretically and practically speaking, you can have a PM who, on the eve of a general election, in order to leave his mark on the country, fills in all possible vacancies in the Judiciary with people he trusts, people of his own, personal choosing without the obligation of submitting his names to the approval of any one else. It's his prerogative to take advice - and stops there. And those new members of the Judiciary will be there for the rest of their professional life ... a deadweight on the whole country!!! That's the system!
So, it is not the Judge who is the 'idiot'. It's the system. The country.
carmel duca •
No, it is not justice. It is a perversion of justice, and people like you help them get away with it by passing it off as 'normal'. Until, of course, you yourself are the victim of an injustice, and suddenly you wonder why no one comes rushing to your support.
The basic issue here is that the judge in this instance arrogated unto himself the authority to decide what the country's 'values' are, and then took it upon himself to 'defend' them - neither of which falls within the remit of the Court. In so doing he disregarded the provisions of the universal declaration of human rights, and even said that they cannot be used to turn the country's values (his own version, of course) upside down - little realising that human rights are part of the country's values to begin with.
Worse than all of this, the ruling can now be cited as justification for all sorts of purely subjective interpretations in future.
As for the chief justice, I assume you are referring to Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici, who lost 14 cases brought against him the European court of human rights - and who famously imprisoned the court electrician for failing to fix the air conditioner, among many other blatant miscarriages of justice. The only reason this country continues to get away with all this rubbish is because so many people are willing not only to put up with it, but also to defend it.
Albert Zammit •
Yes, of course, stupid of me ... He's a judge, not a magistrate, as Raphael Vassallo clearly states. And that's about all the 'toss' he could find 'below'! Raphael, in principle, I agree that there should be freedom of expression but you need go humble yourself somewhat in the face of criticism levelled at you and your ilk. Yes, to call a judge an 'idiot' is far from intelligent. It puts in a bad light not the judge in question but the person who describes him so. Yes, it is true also that the judge in question has added a lot of personal input in the judgement. Reminds me of some lawyer friend of mine who told me that a particular chief justice always threw out every appeal made by a particular lawyer, just for his beliefs. Oh well, that's 'justice' for you.
carmel duca •
First off it was a judge, not a magistrate. Joseph Zammit McKeon was appointed to the bench in January 2009.
Second, it is not up to the Attorney General to appeal, but Unifaun theatre (the producers), and guess what? They are indeed appealing the judgement. Even if it were the AG, to argue that a ruling 'must have been correct because the AG didn't appeal' is the sort of logic you'd expect from a drunk schoolboy.
Third, and most importantly, the judge in this instance did far more than 'apply the law' - he also embellished it with his own purely subjective viewpoint. I suggest you read the judgement again carefully. Among the points raised are that the play 'ridicules the family' - which is not against the law, and therefore absolutely no reason to justify a ban. According to the ruling it also 'undermines the right to life' - which is both complete and utter nonsense, as well as (once again) a subjective opinion that has no place in a serious court ruling.
Lastly, being a judge is certainly no guarantee of not also being an idiot... especially when one considers how judges are appointed and by whom. You may disagree with Karl Schembri's assessment all you like, but he is well within his rights to make it.
•
I would agree that the 'idiot' comment may have been out of bounds, but as a non-legal minded person, I would still not dismiss out of hand the argument that judges do have room for interpretation. For if the Law was self sufficient, why would its application need case-law. Is not case law a reflection of said latitude?
Albert Zammit •
In the case of Therese Friggieri, yes, there I would agree with Schembri about her being an 'idiot'. And she is an 'idiot' because in the first place, she should have never accepted to lead that Board. Therese is well-known in other circles as an avant-garde, for pity's sake! A rebel in her own right! Where has that indomitable spirit gone, Therese?
And as for the Friggieri part of her name, well ... the Friggieris are known for their avant-garde as well, they are known for their finess in things literature, they are known for their lack of artificial holier-than-thou attitude! How does all this fit in with the way Friggieri 'behaved' with the Stitching case?
Albert Zammit •
Once again I have to state, this time clearly, that Karl Schembri should know better than putting pen to paper and claim that a judge is an 'idiot'. Besides, Schembri also shows a serious lack of legal prowess in his comment - nothing wrong with that, considering that he never studied law, but at least, he should keep his butt out of certain comments. A serious journalist - is Schembri one? - should realise that he has nothing to gain and everything to lose, and in any cause, by calling a member of the Bench an 'idiot'. And no, he is wrong in stating that 'judges and magistrates do have a lot of degree of room for interpretation'. It depends on the law in question, whether it gives rise to loopholes, and it depends on the level of the Hall passing sentence: it is one thing for a sentence to be heard by a Magistrate in some Second Hall (Magistrates' Court) and quite another when heard by a Judge, especially in the Superior Courts. It also depends on the subject. And in stating what he did, Schembri also puts the Judiciary on a very, very superior level - by giving to them the power to decide the fate of everyone who appears before them. He is totally wrong!
FRANK MUSCAT •
While it is absolutely true that the laws are outdated, judges and magistrates do have a lot of degree of room for interpretation and personal judgement. In fact, his claim that Stitching would be “an offence to the whole culture of the country” is an entirely subjective opinion for which he gives no evidence or argumentation. What's the "culture of the country"? Which law lays down what is my country's culture and what isn't? Is a McDonald's in an old village core part or an offence of this "culture of the country"?
Even Theresa Friggieri has a lot of leeway for her own subjective views beyond those povide for by the law. Why, for example, is a film on the Marquis De Sade shown uncut (Quills) while a Maltese production gets censored? Is De Sade part of the "culture of the country"? Luckily in that case there were no Friggieris and McKeons imposing their wisdom - and the same applies to books (De Sade yes, Lolita yes, Maltese sex no) and other art forms..
So yes - laws need to be changed to clarify exactly the remits of idiots like Therese Friggieri and McKeon by stating outright that censorship is forbidden and get them to stick to their remit of rating productions ... although with their values I wouldn't even trust them with my hamster.
•
So is this an official rubberstamp declaring social development of Maltese society to be an oxymoron? What can we call a country that allows for the physical rape of its environment at the hands of official insatiable greed as avidly as it persecutes forms of artistic expression that challenges the hypocritical values of those who preside over the metaphorical rape of the body and soul of a Nation?
Albert Zammit •
It all boils down to the fact that our laws need to be changed. This is not an 'idiot judge' as has irresponsibly been said. The magistrate in question - not a judge - was merely APPLYING THE LAW. If the law is an ass, then it behoves us, the citizens of this country, to act and vote in a way that we would ensure that such laws are removed or changed.
One must also comment about the ENORMOUS HARM that has been done, with all this fuss over this play. There will be thousands upon thousands of people, especially young people, flocking to watch this play, whenever the State (member of the EU, no less!!!!) decides to lift the ban on the play. So much attention has been given on a play which would have otherwise gone unnoticed - this is what darling Therese Friggieri in her infinite wisdom, should be told. She has allowed so much harm to be made that she should hide her face in shame and forever disappear from the public eye.
Norman Buckle •
To begin with, the Court in this case is probably not the Constitutional Court as reported. It is, most likely, the First Hall of the Civil Court.
For an appeal to be successful, there has to be an error in law, in the judgement rendered. In this case, there is no such error. Mr. Justice Zammit McKeon correctly interpreted and applied Maltese Law. Had he done otherwise, the Attorney General would appeal the decision. The Law is what it is, and no amount of whining is going to change that.
When the law is asinine, such as the law which criminalises swearing/blasphemy, the worst way to change it is to kick its ass ... it will simply kick the hell out of you with a much greater force.
The correct way, and the only way to change a bad law is to appeal to the good sense of the law-makers, that is, your elected members of parliament. Only they can bring about the much needed change.
Meantime, any Malta-based journalist, writer, artist, film-maker, theatre producer, is subject to existing Maltese laws, like every other Maltese citizen. None is above the law.
If the Front Against Censorship has the resources to appeal Justice McKeon's decision (first, at the Court of Appeal, and failing that, at the Constitutional Court), I'd say, good luck ... the chances of overturning the judgement are, in Catholic Malta, about the same as that of an ice-pellet surviving through a hot oven.
What about the ECHR? Not much of a chance there either.
As things stand, the only way for Malta to be dragged into the 21st Century is for those concerned to influence the legislators to act in favour of modern standards. Anything else is an exercise in futility.
FRANK MUSCAT •
Pity Gonzi didn't promote him to the court of human rights to show the world what stuff our incorruptible society is made of.... I suggest we sue the church for disseminating an extremely violent and degrading book called the bible... there are even some bizarre descriptions of the self-styled son of god (already blasphemous for many societies) being crucified! Fancy that judge mcdonald
Alfred Galea •
When the script calls for someone "to punch someone in the face" it doesn't really happen does it?? Coz if it does the person doing the punching CAN be charged for assault.
But if the script calls for someone to rape or have sex" with someone and it really happens you can be sure that the person will be charged.
Joe Borg •
QUOTE: "He said it was unacceptable in a “democratic society founded on the rule of law” for any person, no matter what they did, to be allowed to swear in public – even in a theatre as part of a script. “According to our law, the very fact that a person swears in public, regardless of the reason, is a contravention... So if the court allows this in a democratic society, it would be discriminating (against those who are punished for swearing in public).”
SO IF PART OF THE SCRIPT IS PUNCHING SOMEONE IN THE FACE, DOES IT MEAN THAT THE ACTOR IS COMMITING A VIOLENT CRIME?.......UNBELEIVABLY RIDICULOUS!
