A few years ago, controversy broke out because a play entitled Duchess of Amalfi was censored. The offending scene consisted of an actress kicking a crucifix. I was asked my opinion on the issue during an edition of Georg Sapiano's Il-Mazz f'Idejk, when the controversy was still raging, and again during a recent edition of Bondi+.

On both occasions I said that, from what I read and heard about the play, it seems to me that the crucifix scene was acceptable when placed in its whole context and as part of a performance which made good use of the language of drama.

This does not mean I think anything is acceptable. Freedom of expression is a very important right but it is not an absolute right. It has to be balanced with other rights and freedoms. It has to be exercised, quite naturally, within the parameters of the law which spells out the relevant restrictions. Recently, for example, hate language was added to such restrictions.

Politicians, church people, journalists and artists - real or self-styled ones - have to work within the parameters of the law in a democratic society. The current controversy about the banning of the play Stitching gives the impression that anyone who styles himself or herself as an artist should not be held accountable before the law.

This attitude happens in other countries as well. I read of an exhibition where one particular piece of 'art' was a crucifix immersed in urine. Another one was a statue of the Madonna dressed in a condom. Is this art? Is it acceptable in a democratic society to insult believers in such a dastardly way? Should one get away with it just by saying this is art?

Back to the local banning of Stitching. The last time that the Board of Film and Stage Classification banned a play was many years ago, and theatre-goers will tell you that many a spicy play has been given the green light. For example, a recent one included a scene of sodomy. Should our reaction then be: how narrow-minded the board members are? Or should our reaction be: this must be an awful play for them to ban it? Or perhaps: let's discuss, to know what's ruled out?

Let me just give two examples from Stitching that may have led the board to take the decision it took. The play includes, for example, blasphemy. One of the two characters, Stu, used the four-letter word in a direct reference to God when Abby tells him that she is not available on Sundays. Isn't blasphemy illegal in Malta? It's not just a question of editing this four-letter word. If all the play's four-letter words are eliminated it would be immensely shorter!

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 this is a family newspaper. Isn't this awful? Isn't this utterly obscene?

The context does not justify these and other hard scenes.

The director of the play pompously described its banning as the end of democracy. I think it would be more fitting to describe it as an exercise halting the glorification of bad taste and pseudo-artistic arrogance.