'Stitching' is 'an insult from beginning to end' - board chairman

Joe Xuereb

Feb 20th 2009, 18:54

The sheer outrage. Someone suggested the horror of a minor seeing a naked man run across the football pitch. And the damage done. Duttrina does a lot of damage (eternal damnation for wasting a length of thread, quoting a wasteful nun in hell for just that). Or an even younger minor (or two or three maybe) being held shoulder-high to get a better view of very realistic, three-dimentional statuary, flagellation dripping with blood. Through a child's mind, this is equivalent to a snuff movie. But of course it is culture (like terrorising firewords and blasting birds out of the sky) and character-forming. Is it any wonder foreigners talk of 'the Maltese psyche'. Is it any wonder that with the present crisis that is the constant influx of illegal immigrants, everybody running around like headless chickens, wringing their hands and not having a clue what to do and what is REALLY going on. To the commentator who asked what would this play avail the public, the answer is. In a general sense, it broadens the mind. And thence, one moves on to other visions. To decision making based on firm foundations. Not pandering to nanny. It is called maturing.

Franco Rizzo

Feb 19th 2009, 21:47

@ Kenneth Cassar

U le Ken, to show you i just furthered your pointing out the irony!

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 19th 2009, 15:56

@ David Farrugia:

It is Magistrates who decide whether our constitution or our legislation has been infringed. Not even the police can do that. What they do is arrest people who they believe is breaking the law, but then it is a Magistrate (or jury) who decides.

As for Mrs Friggieri, she does not concern me one bit. It could have been anyone. I don't criticise her...I criticise what she did.

You speak about other European countries. In other European countries this play has already been staged, and adults were treated as adults and left to decide for themselves whether to go or not.

Regarding the streaker...the same applies. By streaking he is forcing everyone (and not just paying customers) to watch. That is what the law is for.

If you still think this play is illegal, I wonder what you make of the porno cinema in Valletta, which, despite Malta being holier than the Vatican, is still there.

Anyway...time for a break...goodbye.

David Farrugia

Feb 19th 2009, 15:39

@ Kenneth Cassar:

Do you seriously think that only a Magistrate can take decisions to ensure that the law is respected? And you are posting all these comments against Mrs. Friggieri? Do you know that in an organised state, like Malta, and many other European countries, there are various boards and trubunals that cater for administrative purposes but also to ensure that the law is not violated? These run across a whole spectrum of sectors such as in taxation, consumer protection, education, etc. All of these sectors have tribunals and boards empowered by our laws to carry out their duty. They are not magistrates.
In addition, there are other constituted bodies, such as associations of professional people such as accountants, lawyers, and architects, etc, which ensure that their association's code of ethics is followed. These boards can even expel professionals who violate their regulations. And yes, they are not magistrates either.The classifications board is another example.
Moreover, your argument about the streaker is not valid. He would be arrested even if the act happens in a public road (not only in a football ground where there are paying guests)because it is against the law, which this play also is.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 19th 2009, 12:43

@ David Farrugia:

Who do you think that YOU are by saying that Mrs. Friggieri has NOT banned the play? And who do YOU think you are by asserting that you (or Mrs Friggieri) has the right to tell us what to see?

You say that it is our Constitution and our legislation that banned the play. As far as I know, Mrs Friggieri is not a Magistrate.

You ask: "If, as you said, everyone can do what he likes, then why is a streaker arrested if he goes around naked in a football pitch?".

The answer is very simple (to most of us). It is because people paid to watch a football match, and not to watch a streaker. Also, inside football pitches, there might be minors.

If people want to watch nudity, they may go to a cinema in Valletta and legally (I assume) watch porno movies there.

David Farrugia

Feb 19th 2009, 12:24

To all who are condemning Mrs. Friggieri, shame on you.

Who do you think that YOU are by saying that Mrs. Friggieri has banned the play? And who do YOU think you are by asserting that you need nobody to tell you what to see?

It was not Mrs. Friggieri who banned the play, but rather our Constitution and our legislation. It is true that there exists freedom of expression in our state, but that is subject to various limitations, one of which is that of not offending public morals and human dignity.

There was a multitude of people who kept on asking how did this happen if there is freedom of expression-well if, as you said, everyone can do what he likes, then why is a streaker arrested if he goes around naked in a football pitch? Why? Because even though there is freedom of expression, it cannot offend public morals (thankfully)

In addition, in our country there is legislation in place by which this board sees that any production is not against our law. That is what the classification board is obliged to do, and that is what it rightly did.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 19th 2009, 12:01

@ mangion charles:

"Will anyone of those condemning mrs. Friggieri illuminate us ofthe good that will come out of this supposed entertaining work of art?".

We won't know unless we watch it, dear Mr Mangion.

cassar i

Feb 18th 2009, 22:13

Now I want to see this play.

mangion charles

Feb 18th 2009, 20:33

Well done Mrs Friggieri. Will anyone of those condemning mrs. Friggieri illuminate us ofthe good that will come out of this supposed entertaining work of art?

N Borg

Feb 18th 2009, 19:18

Who is this Theresa Friggieri? I have a big distaste to the play Stitching and I will never go to see it, but that is because I do not want to see it MYSELF. It is an INSULT to human dignity when somebody tells you what is bad enough to harm you, but then it is good for the bunch of perverts on the board who are all the time seeing these kind of "immoralities" and telling us that we cannot see them. Ha ha ha, tickle my tummy!!!! By the way, who is paying this theresa friggieri? if it is coming from my taxes, I will not pay any more taxes from now on.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 19:17

If Ms Friggieri thinks that Stitching has graphic references to child abuse, includes anti-Semitic comments, includes swearing, sadism and cruelty against innocent victims and other perversions, I wonder what she would make of this: http://www.evilbible.com/

Warning: The above website contains word-for-word quotations from the Bible which many Christians will find offensive.

And incidentally, let's see Ms Friggieri stop me or anyone from visiting that site.

Censorship is history. Get over it.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 18:54

"Classification board" is just a name the Censorship board uses to look European, when in fact, it is Medieval.

c.t. busuttil

Feb 18th 2009, 18:25

"Who exactly is Mrs Friggieri..." "Can you pls quote the law that this law breaks" "We have a class of super illuminated people" "Are you going to ban the Old Testament next" and I could go on. This is what our education system has produced, one which is focussed on examinations rather than knowledge.

B. Stott

Feb 18th 2009, 18:13

@ Cikku Borg:

And who on Earth are you to tell us what 'the majority of the Maltese' want? No play breaks the law, and if you believe that you need to go back and re read the law. Plays are merely there to teach us a lesson! To INFORM us! Just because Ms. Friggieri believes that she can ban this play (may i point out her job is to CLASSIFY) then by doing so she does NOT make these issues raised go away! Just because these issues are frowned upon in the Maltese Islands (ESPECIALLY) does not make it right to ban this play! No play should be banned from being staged - the author just wants to inform us.

It is quite clear you are not a Thespian Mr. Borg but despite that you still have no right to tell anyone what "the majority" of the Maltese want.

R Axisa

Feb 18th 2009, 17:41

"The play Stitching is "an insult to human dignity from beginning to end", the chairman of the Classification Board insisted this morning."

Ms Friggieri is the chairman of the CLASSIFICATION BOARD - so as the name implies, the board can only classify - in other words give a rating or put in a category - but by no means to ban.

Being a 40+ citizen, the board cannot prohibit me from seeing this kind of play, which after all is no big deal. Much more is seen on TV / internet. The board's duty is to inform us citizens, the rating of such plays, so as to guide us whether attending a play can be a family (parents and children) outing or not. No more, no less.

Kaydee Zammit

Feb 18th 2009, 16:12

Pah! Somehow I don't believe that the "majority of people" feel this play is breaking the law (which one, I might ask?) In 2009 and STILL censorship is being abused to this level. If one is 18 years old or older, s/he has enough sense to choose whether or not to watch the play. Who exactly is Mrs Friggieri to ban it?

Kevin Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 15:52

@ Cikku Borg. So you are another of these supreme beings that are so intelligent that they feel they can arrogantly speak on behalf of the "majority" of the maltese people!!! Ignorance knows no limits and that's why we're eons behind as a country. Even if the majority of the maltese (who I'm sure did not authorize you to speak on their behalf) were in favour of the ban, that does not make it right.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 15:49

@ Cikku Borg:

Can you please quote the law that this play breaks? And while you're at it, can you provide me with the statistics from which you deduce that the majority of Maltese people welcome Ms Friggieri's decision?

Cikku Borg

Feb 18th 2009, 14:59

The issue in hand is not about Censorship - if it should be there or not. The issue is about a play that breakes the Laws of Malta or 'instigates' one to do so. The producer knows this very well and so do the actors. Let us keep the real issue in mind before we blab on endlessly. If the play is staged the producer, actors and anybody that is involved should be jailed. Thank you Mrs Friggieri for Standing up to say NO - The majority of the Maltese welcome your decision and stand.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 14:42

@ Franco Rizzo:

"It is also ironic that Pope Benedict compared homosexuality to a global environmental threat".

What has this to do with me? I'm neither a Christian, nor a homophobe.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 14:13

@ MG Buttigieg:

There is no such thing as "inverted" censorship. Either there is censorship or there is not. You cannot censor censorship. You either enforce it or abolish it.

You remind me of an old joke which goes something like this:

Person A: "You shouldn't tell me what to do"
Person B: "And you're telling ME what to do?"

But it seems that now we have a class of super illuminated people who can act as mummies and daddies for all of us.

Joe Galea

Feb 18th 2009, 13:37

This is a farce!! The board has banned this play while has not banned the church from promoting and selling a book full of hatred against homosexuals.

Shame on you all!!....the church included!!

Franco Rizzo

Feb 18th 2009, 13:07

@ Kenneth Cassar and MG Buttigieg

It is also ironic that Pope Benedict compared homosexuality to a global environmental threat.

MG Buttigieg

Feb 18th 2009, 12:59

@Kenneth Cassar
isn't all the negative criticism leveled at Ms Friggieri and the rest of the Board a case of inverted censorship. After all the board has been acting within the law. It seems that now we have a class of super illuminated people who want to act above the law. Beware here we are treading on very very thin ice!!!

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 12:15

@ MG Buttigieg:

It is ironic that the "person in politics" you mention was know for censoring all opposition (including burning books and banning publications that opposed his views).

R. Gatt

Feb 18th 2009, 11:42

Who does Teresa Friggieri think she is to tell me, a 50+ citizen what to watch or listen to or both. As somebody already wrote, the classification board is there to classify and not ban a film, play or whatever. When will this country of ours start treating adult citizens especially, as persons with a mature mind and capable of making their own decisions instead of others making them for us. And this not just with censorship. You'll find it in most other decisions taken.

MG Buttigieg

Feb 18th 2009, 10:15

Once upon a time there was a person in politics who decided that citizens of Jewish decent, disabled people and homosexuals were the bane of society. He started preaching this to his fellow country men until the time was ripe. When the time was right and he set off his heinous plans for their elimination he had many many many followers. Nobody questioned! All floundered in the mire created by his new culture of hate. And the acrid smoke from the gas chambers filled the countryside. Only a few acknowledged the smell for what it was.
Today instead of this political person we have freedom of expression. And in the name of freedom of expression, be it on the web, or on TV or in the theatre muck is again inundating our society. This is abuse of the sacrosanct right for freedom of expression. This is what Benedict VI has termed the dictatorship of relativism.

Noel Cutajar

Feb 17th 2009, 23:04

"The producers know they are breaking the law, it is their business," she said.

This is being quoted from the above article...if the producers know what they are doing, so let us do what we need to do...watch the play and let US decide!!

laurence schembri

Feb 17th 2009, 17:43

Teresa Friggieri, is doing her job, well and good.The choice should be left to the individual.
A stern warning should have covered the whole issue.What surprises me more is that Ms. Friggieri hails from a family of actors, what if not her being the chaiman of the censors, a part was offered to her in "Stitching", as an actor would she have refused it?

Chris Camilleri

Feb 17th 2009, 17:01

By the way, anyone dredging up the 2002 Guardian review of the play in Edinburgh, which people walked out of in disgust, in defense of banning the Maltese version of the production should note the delicious irony in the fact that those people had the chance to decide for themselves. As did the ones who decided to stay.

Chris Camilleri

Feb 17th 2009, 16:50

Anthony Farrugia (and others like you) - surely as an adult who makes choices for yourself every day of your life you realise that this is not a discussion about whether the play is in fact a 'work of art' or a 'load of manure', but rather about whether Teresa Friggieri should have the right to play god and tell you whether you can see it or not?

There are certain inescapable facts here:

- A classification board should not be able to ban anything. It is not its purpose and it is in effect a conflict of interests - the power to be both (unqualified) judge and jury. Scary.

- The content of the play in question is not the subject of discussion here, which is why comparing this play to other media that weren't censored is an exercise in futility. This isn't a discussion about whether the play is suitable for you or me, it's a discussion about your and my inalienable right to decide for myself whether it is.

- It is these nonsensical barriers, put up by backward thinkers like Teresa Friggieri, that present us with opportunities to inch Malta forward. Onwards and upwards.

john borg

Feb 17th 2009, 16:10

Maltese do not have the brains to choose there is Mrs Friggieri to do it for us.

Kevin Cassar

Feb 17th 2009, 15:04

"An insult to human dignity from beginning to end" is people like Mrs. Farrugia thinking they can tell me what to watch or not. Oh well, in this Church controlled state where even Religious belief is imposed on you, this is hardly surprising. She says the play contains child abuse, sadism, cruelty against innocent victims and other perversions. Sounds a lot like the Roman Catholic Church.

chris gatt

Feb 17th 2009, 14:38

As the director of this play, I am now despairing. Has Ms Friggieri read the same text i am working on? The play is a about a man who will go to any length to bring a relationship back together. It is about human dignity and despair.
Far from being an insult to human dignity, it is Ms Friggieri's comments which are an insult to common sense.
Are we now no longer allowed to examine the darker seams of our nature. The play is full of incredibly poetic moments, at once visceral and funny and often very painful. It is obvious that all this passed her by. But frankly, i am not surprised

Patrick Attard

Feb 17th 2009, 13:48

take a look at what was not censored:
http://www.timesofmalta.com.mt/articles/view/20090214/local/protest-over-book-sold-at-church-media-centre

Mario Pace

Feb 17th 2009, 13:34

Anyone interested to have a general idea what this play is about and the reactions of the audience should follow this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/aug/05/edinburgh02.edinburgh
However I must make it clear that personally I feel the Board of Censors has no right to dictate and impose upon an adult person living in a free and democratic country.

S. Vella

Feb 17th 2009, 11:04

@Ms Friggieri

Are you going to ban the Old Testament next - explicit incest is plastered over it's pages. Or do we have a case of 2 weights and 2 measures adopted.

@ J, Vassallo - I am all out for child pornography and bestiality to be vehemently outlawed and cracked upon. Both cases involve psychological, emotional and physical harm to defenceless beings. Fetishes between consenting adults that involve no harm cannot and should not be censored. To be honest, this point is moot since the advent of the internet as somebody already pointed out.

A Censorship Board has no place In a civilised, educated and secular society. I will never accept Ms Friggieri or anyone else to decide what I can view, read or ponder about.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 17th 2009, 10:31

"The play has graphic references to child abuse; the play includes anti-Semitic comments; it includes swearing; sadism and cruelty against innocent victims and other perversions".

I wonder...will Teresa Friggieri ban the "Old Testament" next? It contains all of the above.

Noel Zarb

Feb 17th 2009, 10:12

To Mr Polidano who said "I do not know why so many people are taking it all out against Ms Friggieri. She is doing what in her conscience and in her position she believes to be right and just."

I don't quite think so, I think that she is out on a personal vendetta or a hidden agenda against Unifaun or one of its directors and you know what??? she is not managing...as she is doing free promotion for the play and the production!!!! Let her continue.

Theatre attendance was always subject to the discretion of the people buying the ticket so this ban is stupid and should be revoked immediately. If Ms Friggieri is doing as Mr Polidano is stating then why didn't she say anything against Equus, Mercury Fur, and other controversial plays such as the upcoming 4.48

Anthony Farrugia

Feb 17th 2009, 10:12

This controversy shows that neo-colonialism is still alive and well even though 45 years have passed since Malta became independent; since this "work of art" or "load of manure" has been written by a non-Maltese, it's a work of art, avant garde, not to be missed, full of significant passages or twaddle etc, etc, etc......
All true theatre lovers should vote with their feet and not go within a kilometre of the theatre or warehouse where it is being produced.
The Police and judicial authorities should do their duty and prevent the performance of this effluvia once a permit has not been granted.
Ms Therese Friggieri - more power to your elbow!

David Captur

Feb 17th 2009, 09:13

Much ado about nothing, if you find the content of a play offensive just don't watch it. What sense is there to applying a ban here and not applying it to films? Surely the Cinema theatres in Malta have more of a following, hence the ban is petty. I for one find the content of this play rather disturbing (from what I read so far) so I will certainly not watch it, but I can see no logic to preventing other adults from watching it.

a attard

Feb 17th 2009, 08:31

If the board is so convinced that this production (whatever it is) is an insult to human dignity and so on, why not let the people decided for themselves by rendering it a flop rather then imposing? Why the Maltese still are treated like they need to be guided by an enlightened lot? - don’t you think that everyone can make a decision of their own of what is good and bad taste, specially living in an age where information is free to all and an educated decisions can be taken? And should we ban the news too now? its full of REAL time situations of human dignity insults where everyone can watch freely. Ex if I watch a movie that had no feedback on and i find it disgusting / boring or whatever, I would walk out and not endure it.

Noel Cutajar

Feb 17th 2009, 08:17

I am no play lover...but not being allowed to watch a play just because some members of a board have decided that it is not acceptable...let me decide!! What happened to free will and determination!! A journalist said that we are tempted everytime we use the internet because of gambling etc...I wonder what he would have done if he was 'tempted' to publish a story dicated by others? Would he have said yes or would he have said that he is a free man and let him decide? The censor board would have to do some homework before...how about censoring the following films for racist contents, violence and degradation of the human being:
1. Schindler's List
2. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas
3. Taken
4. and all other movies which depict violence, racism, human degradation...

Why not stop us also in what we read, in what we think? Burn the witch? Let us parade with flags and burn all books in the square for the sake of our soul!!

Chris Mifsud

Feb 16th 2009, 20:41

@D.Polidano "The law of the country gives to those who disagree the right to seek remedy at the Courts" Who the hell are the courts to decide what i may or may not view ?? I am sorry , but in my opinion Ms Friggieri has absolutely NO RIGHTS whatsoever to impose her opinion on to anybody ... And the courts time should not be wasted either . Are we living in 2009 or 1959 ? Its time Malta throws all its fundamentalist religious and moral guided laws in the thrashcan of history where it belongs .

D. Polidano

Feb 16th 2009, 19:52

I do not know why so many people are taking it all out against Ms Friggieri. She is doing what in her conscience and in her position she believes to be right and just. The law of the country gives to those who disagree the right to seek remedy at the Courts, which right they have exercised. So why all this fuss? Why not play by the rules and wait and see? Besides, should we not all accept that there are limits as to what constitutes legitimate and acceptable artistic expression? Or shall we adopt the stance that even trash and excretion can be considered as adorable works of art?

Adrian Wirth

Feb 16th 2009, 19:43

Thank goodness through the medium of the 'blog' we are at last seeing a means of projecting the freedom of expression and speech that has been so lacking for generations. The liberty to express personal thoughts without the impress of 'the establishment' is an indication that true democracy is starting to appear.
Congratulations to all brave enough to put their heads above the parapet.
I havn't and I suspect the majority of correspondents havn't, read the script. Reading a book and viewing a drama are wholly different experiences. Very personal and very subjective.
The Censorship Board, for better or worse within their remit, currently have a right to their opinion but that opinion has to be seen as being balanced and compatible with our society and social norms and especially take into account the audience sophistication and educational level likely to attend the venue - It would seem emotional perceptions of political correctness may perhaps have been allowed to get somewhat out of balance. There's still time to return to normality and avoid our nation once again becoming the butt of foreign humour. Who noticed the full frontal nudity and eroticism on local Favorite TV Channel yesterday afternoon? Where's balance.

Joseph Vassallo

Feb 16th 2009, 19:04

Personally, I am not fond of censorship and was taken to task in this very paper, some three decades ago because of my stated opinions on topless bathing (which today no one even notices).

However, so much generic disdain has been expressed and the “arrogance of censors”, “Dark Ages” or arguments of that nature mentioned, that I venture to pose a question: Since blanket removal of censorship seems to be what everybody wants, what would be the attitude of these authors if the presentation involved child pornography or other equally obnoxious stuff like bestiality, bondage or whatever other fetishism sick minds are capable of conjuring up?

Would you still be saying “Hands off; we are adults and can decide for ourselves whether to patronise them or not?" Quite a dilemma, because at which point does one acknowledge that lewd behaviour should not be allowed to be foisted for the benefit of equally decrepit minds, that need such metaphoric duct tape to prop up their instability? So, if there is no censorship, it's a free-for-all and all deviances can be exhibited and advertised.

That's not something good, in my humble oinion.

Paul Caruana

Feb 16th 2009, 18:48

From what I have read, this play is definately not my cup of tea. Having said that, I find the sweeping statement by the Censor board particularly distrubing. Stopping the viewing, by a mature audience, because it is "an insult from beginning to end" is unacceptable.

I feel more ill at ease with the concept of having an appointed "guardian of morals" imposing his/her views on me in my own country, rather than someone else staging a piece of trash, to be viewed only by a mature audience, which would in any case close down rather quickly, since very few people would turn up for the show anyway!

c.t. busuttil

Feb 16th 2009, 18:42

It is easier to be bad than to be good. It is easy to shock. The challenge is for the artist to convey the message and to leave an impression, within the parameters of decency. Those who are capable of it do it.

Chris Mifsud

Feb 16th 2009, 18:21

The Classification Board has NO RIGHT whatsoever to tell me what i can and cannot watch .

I can't understand why Malta is always pulled 30 years back when it comes to censorship and anything religious .

Government and authorities should move ahead with the times . --- People are not ultra relgious like they were 30 or 40 years ago .

Religion , morals etc... should not be forced onto anyone . This is time for a change not only in the censorshio laws , but also in divorce , abortion and other cases .

Why are we always last in everything ?

Roger Tirazona

Feb 16th 2009, 18:10

"Art creates an unreal world which is more real than the real" - Joseph Conrad

That the play could be disturbing, disgusting, vile or morally challenging; I cannot tell as I have not watched the play and merely reading a synopsis I feel does not allow me to pass a direct judgement. However Sadism, Deviant Sexuality, Violence, Swearing and the predation of innocents are something we hear on the news every day I'm afraid. They are an integral part of our primitive and instinctual minds. This form of expression of art is only mirroring what violence and cruelty we have inside of us and which some people in society lack the skills or the psychological barriers to control. Are we afraid of the truth that such things exist?

It is also an insult to my intelligence to assume I would be affected or even encouraged to behave in a similar way should I watch violence or sadism or other such dark things. After all people have paid money to watch scary or "disgusting" movies of the likes of SAW or Hostel which show the violence, deviance and deprivation of sick minds.

Karl Vella

Feb 16th 2009, 17:32

What next? will we be censoring the Internet?

I already have access on the internet to tons of videos that are "an insult to human dignity from beginning to end" ...all these without the need to purchase a ticket to watch them. Is Mrs Friggieri going to come and pull the plug from my laptop next?

Let's get real, and rate this play as 18+ and plaster all sorts of disclaimers on it but in the end it's up to us whether we buy a ticket or not. "Bniedem avzat, nofsu armat"

GiovDeMartino

Feb 16th 2009, 17:06

The authorities are in duty bound to defend the law. DO NOT allow them to defy the ban.

Edward Caruana Galizia

Feb 16th 2009, 16:49

Could someone please tell these cencors that IT S JUST ACTING! for god's sake. It doenst actaully happen! Plus...Mercury fur has just as much swearing, just as heavy scenes as stitching, blasphemy was every other word AND there was child abuse in there too....so whats so special about this play?!

Plus- Why is it suddenly a " Classification board" ? Isnt, then, their job to simply give an age classification? I like how it took them a whole month to finally give their reason. I ve read the play and believe me, it is not an insult.

m briffa

Feb 16th 2009, 16:21

A BIG HUG AND A MASSIVE KISS ARE DUE TO THERESA FRIGGIERI........ YOU HAVE CERTAINLY WHETTED MY COURIOSITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I may not be a regular theatre goer,m but am certainly an avid reader. one guess what i've just ordered over the internet....... yes, that's it - ITS A BOOK ENTITLED STITCHING. nothing i love better than a book with such a controversial following.......

and yes as other people have commented, you dont even need to surf the net anymore, all i you need to do is watch programmes such as Beautiful, which is full of incest. also what is to be said abour certain maltese 'telenovellas' which are rated 18.


nobody certainly tells me what NOT TO read or see.

B. Stott

Feb 16th 2009, 16:11

If Stitching is seen fit to be banned, what about the other plays that Unifaun has produced in the last year or so? Mercury Fur? Equus? Paul? Blasted? They all raised controversial issues and were allowed to be staged - all be it that they wished for us to see shrinks after the run of Mercury Fur (HA! In your dreams). I'm not saying they should have been banned as I enjoyed watching them and, in the case of MF, acting in.

I think the amount of trouble the Producer has been put through over this play is ridiculous and, as many people have said; who are you, Ms. Friggieri, to tell us what we can and cannot watch?

Joseph A Borg

Feb 16th 2009, 16:07

on the account of Mrs Friggieri's reasons to ban the play, we should ban most of the old testament from public reading in church…

r, ellul

Feb 16th 2009, 15:24

I agree that we must protect our society and have a high moral standard. However Malta does not keep to this rule !!! A disgraceful bit of junk was put up in luqa under the name of art but what it is. It a monument to Baal !! It is an offense to the public morals and should be pulled down!!! So please if you are going to censor do it across the board not picking up whom you favor and who don't!!!!

alan meadows

Feb 16th 2009, 15:22

I concurring with the indignation that Ms. Friggeri has aroused through her irrational statements. She would have been better placed to give an objective judgment, had she attended a rehearsal of the play. As the director of Stitching, Chris Gatt pointed out, it is the artist interpretation of script as played out on the stage that is to be considered. The fact that no representative of the Board, attended a rehearsal gives me the impression that it was not just the play that Ms Friggeri was objecting to, but the fact that a company like Unifaun, is prepared to break away from "sterile" productions and present human experiences that are thought provoking. There are many problems in contemporary society that need to be faced-up to and discussed. Theatre is a medium that should stimulate and provoke a reaction.

R Bartolo

Feb 16th 2009, 15:09

"The play is an insult to human dignity from beginning to end" Mrs Friggieri said. So what. Maybe I am happy to pay to be insulted. As far as I know this is not being forced upon anyone, and hence no one is being involuntarily offended or harmed.

Vanessa Bonnici

Feb 16th 2009, 14:30

How dare someone tell me what I can and can NOT read/see/watch or view be it books,TV, Cinema and/or Theatre!!!

steve busuttil

Feb 16th 2009, 14:25

To those people who are in favour of censorship. You clearly never watched SouthPark as otherwise you would be organising mass rallies to block TV as well! Just face it, your line of reasoning is outdated and archaic. If you dont like it dont watch it but dont expect to lecture everybody else about what is right and what is wrong.

Dr Paul Sant-Cassia

Feb 16th 2009, 14:08

After reading the comments of all those insisting on their right to see this play (which they probably would not have seen had it been passed by the "censors"), I am beginning to think that this play is certainly not worth viewing. Now if they had said: "Yes, actually this play is disgusting, and it is right that it be banned", then I might have been interested. With all this fuss, the play is likely to be a disappointment: disappointing because it didn't go far enough to justify the censorship, and disappointing because it might not be saying as much as its supporters claim it is saying....Or perhaps this might be a cunning strategy orchestrated by the play's producers to actually get the play banned?... That is what I would call an Odyssean move, and I would take my metaphorical hat off to them. As things are panning out, the complaints seem like howls of indignation by those who love the indignation of indignation. The most prefect play is the one that is banned forever, because even the playright and the actors would not dare stage it. Perhaps "The Last Days of Mankind" by Karl Krauss?

joe fountain

Feb 16th 2009, 13:55

FUNDAMETALIST BEHAVIOUR
Don t we have the right to make our minds Mrs Friggieri?

Frans Sammut

Feb 16th 2009, 13:51

Had it not been Teresa Friggieri who is chairing the Classification Board I would have instinctively rooted for the "rebellion" that is afoot regarding this foreign play. As things stand, I would first await the outcome of the legal process, then take a position. Rushing in where angels fear to tread should not be an option. Let us wait and see.

A Montanaro

Feb 16th 2009, 13:48

This is theatre!!!
As far as I know, theatre is form of entertainment based on "information". in other words people INFORM themselves before deciding to go to the theatre or not. Its not like TV where one might happen upon something "offensive".
I'm in my 40's. I don't think i need a board of censors watching over me and making my choices for me. Should i choose to go and watch the play and find it distasteful, i would be free to leave when i please. Thus is my freedom to choose.
By all means, warn the people that it is the opinion of the Board of Censors that this play "is an insult to human dignity" - but, for freedom's sake, leave the adult individual decide whether to go get his human dignity insulted, or not.!

Edwin formosa

Feb 16th 2009, 13:23

outmoded Classification Board......an insult to the intellect...... we are capable of deciding on what is right or wrong....OK OK.....But listen to this:::::::Censorship is back; not against pornography or unpopular political opinions, but against Christianity . A number of recent cases highlight the trend to silence unpopular convictions. (1)A Baptist nurse,suspended from her job for offering to pray for a patient, reported the Telegraph on Feb.1 (2) a foster mother was struck off by council authorities after a teenage Muslim girl she was looking after converted to Christianity.(3) An anti-abortion group had its status as a club revoked by the student union at the University of Calgary
http://www.zenit.org/article-25097?l=english

ceri whitley

Feb 16th 2009, 13:10

When I first arrived here in Malta many years ago I was told of the amusing anecdote to self righteous people trying to control what adults should experience.

It involved the Church here, and the powers that be therein, who decided to make public a list of 'banned books' that the Church thought Maltese shouldn't read.

The list proved so popular that the Church then decided that the list of 'banned books' should also be banned.

The moral of the story? - let grown ups decide for themselves.
It's human nature to be curious after all, and we were all made in Gods image, weren't we?

Marius Zulgis

Feb 16th 2009, 13:03

Fundimentalism strikes again. Please let's have enough belief in the intelligence and maturity of Maltese society as a whole to take our own decisions in a mature way and without being told what to see and think. I don't know about the upbringing of the members of the board but I was trusted to make my own decisions once I attained the age of 18. Some decisions may have been wrong but learning from one's mistakes is part of spiritual growth. When I needed advice before taking a decision I would ask for it, but advice was never forced upon me by an elder, no matter how well-meaning this may have been. Hopefully the authorities will appreciate the ability of Maltese society to decide for itself and simply impose an age limit rather than a Puritan ban.

V Farrugia

Feb 16th 2009, 12:56

Mrs Friggieri, I am 31 years old, will you please hold my hand while we cross the road?

Then, why do you think that you have the right to tell me, what and what not to watch?!

Mario Bonnici

Feb 16th 2009, 12:43

Dear Ms Friggieri

You're there to give your view about the play and guide us. Than it's up to us to decide whether we want to see the play or not.

Tony Caruana

Feb 16th 2009, 12:36

Teresa Friggieri

Who are you to tell me what i can and cannot watch ?

A Coppini

Feb 16th 2009, 12:14

A lot of local TV productions are an insult to human intelligence from beginning to end.... shouldn't we ban those as well Teresa?

Oh no wait.. I can opt NOT to watch them.. just as with the theater.. I, as an adult, am free to choose.

Peter Camilleri

Feb 16th 2009, 12:12

This is misinformation at its best.

I have a copy of the script in my hands, and I have read it over and over, cover to cover.

The play does NOT contain any anti-Semitic comments; it merely refers to Auchwitz in the context of one of the characters feeling revulsed about his thoughts.
It does NOT contain any sadism and cruelty against innocent victims; again it merely mentions such acts in a particular context, but in no way are these performed on stage. The acts are mentioned in a way that is no different to how we would hear them in the news.
The play is NOT blasphemous. It merely contains some swearing, which is no different to what one hears on TV and at the cinema.

Mrs Friggieri is fully entitled not to like the play and to think it's the world's worst piece of writing ever; but neither she nor the law allow her to ban something that in itself does not fall foul of any law, but (at the very worst) simply falls foul of matters of taste.

Patrick Attard

Feb 16th 2009, 11:59

What if the play is rated 21+ or 25+ Restricted??

There are a large number of horror movies which are still shown here in Malta so I don't understand why these are not restriced too.

David Micallef

Feb 16th 2009, 11:51

@ all the local holier than thou:
PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE COMMUNICATIONIBUS SOCIALIBUS, MESSAGE OF THE HOLY FATHER, JOHN PAUL II, FOR THE 38th WORLD COMMUNICATIONS DAY
THEME:The Media and the Family: A Risk and a Richness : May 23, 2004

"Without resorting to censorship, it is imperative that public authorities set in place regulatory policies and procedures to ensure that the media do not act against the good of the family. Family representatives should be part of this policy-making"

Although EU is suggesting to move away even from regulations set by public authorities,the Vatican,via late Pope John Paul DID suggest not to resort to censorship.

"In view of their great power to shape ideas and influence behaviour, professional communicators should recognize that they have a moral responsibility not only to give families all possible encouragement,assistance, and support to that end, but also to exercise wisdom,good judgement and fairness in their presentation of issues involving sexuality,marriage and family life."

Roman Catholic Church understandbly enough,has the obligation to convey its message. However it's not suggesting any theocratic stands, irrelevant
of any political parties (worldwide) whose ideology is that seek to apply Christian principles to public policy. Some Maltese apparently beg to differ.

martin portelli

Feb 16th 2009, 11:44

Will the same attitude be applied towards books and dvds? Will we be asked to hand over copies of Schindler's list , Benigni's life is beautiful and Nabokov's lolita? Will we rid our University library of TS elliot, Shakespeare, Chaucer and Dickens? Will documentaries and literature dealing with the tribal practice of female infibulation and stitching be banned too, lest someone's sensibilities are offended even if they have no intention of watching/reading it ? Is this a case of two weights and two measures?

PS. Are the Maltese law courts making a killing out of fining Blasphemers?

Ian Refalo

Feb 16th 2009, 11:44

The question that needs to be asked is whether the "Board of Film and Stage Certification" has the right to censor in the first place. As far as I understand it, its remit is to certify, and certify only. Fine, put a nice big AO sign on every bit of advertising, make it amply clear that there are scenes that can offend public morals, and so forth, but leave it at that. Talk about big brother!

rene joseph

Feb 16th 2009, 11:43

The play should have been classified as +18 followed with a warning that it might offend some of the public and then leaving it to the public to decide if they want to see it or not.

Shame on the board and censorship.

Wayne Flask

Feb 16th 2009, 11:29

Dear Mrs Friggieri

We're not within College walls anymore here. Censoring artistic expression is not like correcting bad grammar or colourful orthography.

I'm sorry, censorship, like the inquisition, is archaic.

Let Stitching be.

Wayne

Charmaine Chetcuti

Feb 16th 2009, 11:19

anti-semitic comments, child abuse, swearing, sadism????? We've seen it all in movies and I do not think that seeing it in a play will be much different!!! What right has the board to declare what should I see and what I shouldn't? People who go to the play already know what it is going to be about so quit saying that people will be shocked bla bla bla.

@ Julian Zarb

Being a media presenter I think you should know better...what are you proposing? that the government starts banning websites as in China? I've been using the internet practically everyday but I've never been TEMPTED (as you say it) to visit anti semitic websites or websites that promote child abuse!!! You think of people as mindless sheep and again since you proclaim that you are a media presenter you should know better!!!!!!

Kif jejdu il-hazin jekk tfittxu anki barra l-bieb tad-dar issibu.

David Micallef

Feb 16th 2009, 11:18

In 2005, an Interim Report, Study on Co-Regulatory Measures in the Media Sector, Study for the European Commission,Directorate Information Society, Unit A1: Audiovisual and Media Policies, Digital Rights, Task Force on Coordination of Media Affairs, Tender DG EAC 03/04, Contract No.: 2004-5091/001-001 DAVBST concludes the following about Malta (which includes theatre as well):

"The Maltese media regulation is predominantly characterised by a traditional command and control approach taken by the state and expressed by means of legislation."

This is how an official interim report drafted in Hamburg looks at our system. We can snub it and perhaps even argue that our system is endemic and should be respected as such. But seeing the rest of Europe thinking otherwise and putting it in a different perspective, should at least make you think outside an island environment and look at traditional regulation vis-a-vis globalisation . The same report concludes:

"Moreover, traditional regulation does not seem to stimulate creative activities
effectively. Initiatives, innovation and commitment cannot be imposed by law
Given that modern regulation has to rely on co-operation with the objects of
regulation to achieve its objectives, this is becoming another significant factor.

Kate de Cesare

Feb 16th 2009, 11:09

I wonder, did the censorship board see 'blasted' also produced by Unifaun theatres? That play included violence, baby eating, anal rape, masturbation and all sorts of taboo scenes... how is it that that play was okay but something much milder, like Stitching is not.

Its a ridiculous denial on our basic freedoms to ban this play. Give it a rating if you like, but don't patronise us by banning it. Whats next, the Spanish Inquisition???

steve busuttil

Feb 16th 2009, 11:05

Dear Mrs Friggieri,

What makes you think that ADULTS are not capable of deciding on what is right or wrong? In this day and age, with the advent of the internet, isn't it a bit rich to try and stop a production while one can view all sorts of material over the net?

Finally, i dont really enjoy the theater that often, however all this hype makes me want to watch the play, if for nothing to satisfy my curiosity as to its content.

Paul Vella

Feb 16th 2009, 11:02

The Chairperson's comments stink of fundamentalism. What right she has to impose her sanctimonious opinion on us mortals?? I'm not interested in 'Stitching' as such and the hulabaloo that it is raising is not testing my curiosity either. But I cannot tolerate actions similar to the Chairperson's. it's an insult to the intellect. What's the fuss?? Just give the play the classification it deserves and that's it!! Get on with your job!!

BTW

Karl Abela

Please tell it to the marines!!

Julian Zarb

Feb 16th 2009, 10:54

I am sorry but if some people lack any semblance of ethics or respect for others then they need guidelines through censorship. It is bad enough that we are all exposed to internet, online gambling, gambling shops and the like..true these are there for those who CHOOSE to use them but they are a definite temptation once they are there....perhaps such performances could affect those who CHOOSE to see them and have adverse affects on an already influenced society! It is not a case of outdated codes of censorship Mr. Waught et al, it is a definite case of saving society from itself! Besides who wants to be "entertained" by such performances!

Julian Zarb
Tourism Journalist and Media Presenter

I.Cilia

Feb 16th 2009, 10:48

The only function of the classification board is to rate the appropriate ages at which film, plays etc can be shown... If in doubt slap an AO rating and let people decide...

and calling it an insult is a very biased opinion.. the "chairman" should not personal perceptions cloud her judgement...

People have the right to see what they want... let them decide...

seems we are going back to the 1950's

Ian Waugh

Feb 16th 2009, 10:44

'Stitching' has been performed in established venues in other EU states.

It is therefore 'tried and tested'.

Malta, much to the alarm of fellow Europeans still retains a Classification Board with regulations originally dating back 72 years.

The world and the EU have moved on.

Nobody is forcing anyone to view a performance that, currently, has to be vetted by this outmoded Classification Board.

Like other productions "banned" and "disallowed" in Malta over the years, this play does not promote violence, homophobia, racism or xenophobia.

Regarding any performance - I have the choice to purchase a ticket, or not.

I am 54 years old. I do want a nanny at my time of life thank you very much.

I am sure I speak for many when I say that I do not like to be patronised by a system of censorship which in itself should be scrapped.

I am not a particularly educated person but I do have the basic common sense to find out what a play is about before I buy a ticket to see it.

Jeremy Lanfranco

Feb 16th 2009, 10:43

Now I really want to see this play! The point over here is not the content of this play but the arrogance of the censorship board to dictate what mature adults are allowed to see on stage. The irony is that most films classified as 18 are still available from DVD shops and some of these go beyond the issue of perversity and vulgarity. Were these censored? The job of the censorship board is NOT to ban a play but rate it for different audiences. Its about time the law wakes up to this reality of freedom of speech. In these days and times, where internet is a household commodity, these perversions and insults to human dignity are a click away from anyone. It is obviously up to the persons jurisdiction to decide what is morally acceptable or not. At my tender age of 40+ I think I can now decide for myself!

D Bailey

Feb 16th 2009, 10:40

Are we in the Dark Ages or what? Stick a huge 18+, AO whatever rating on it and let grown ups decide whether they want to see the play or not. It's not as if it's being forced down your throat. Actually no one knew about the play before all this nonsense!

K. Pullicino

Feb 16th 2009, 10:36

Ah, but since we're a democracy, you cannot stop anyone from spouting out stupidity (and getting money for it too).

Karl Abela

Feb 16th 2009, 10:30

Well done to the classification board.

It seems that some people would go very low indeed to make money.

Criss Camiller

Feb 16th 2009, 10:21

The more talks, writings etc about the banning of this production, the more people will go and see it.

Swearing? This could be heard in Movies, shown in local Cinemas.

With what you are doing, you are giving this production free Publicity. Remember 'Da Vinci Code' ? Thousands went to see this Film, that is, here in Malta.

charles caligari Conti

Feb 16th 2009, 10:19

Would the actors be breaking the law too in the case that they would perform ?