'Stitching' reviewed twice - Classification Board

Joe Xuereb

Feb 21st 2009, 06:51

If I understood correctly,Mr. Neilson the producer of the play, explained that the Holocaust/naked Jewish women scene, in context, was about an adult recalling his boyhood masturbatory fantasies. A healthy adult would censor himself from such an image because, as such, he would be aware of the implications of such imagery. The only thing that concerns a young boy's mind discovering, yes, the sheer pleasure of masturbation is the nudity. Any number of such images in the Vatican could serve the same persons. As a healthy mature adult, he will look back on this imagery, will have learnt the overall meaning of the image and deal with that in whatever way, at his own level. No sexual fantasy for him. Some immature/sick adult could of course still use the image as somehow sexual. That would be a different case and I am sure it happens. If I were to see Stitching, which I doubt as I get all the information I need from reading material online, this is how I would process the 'controversial' themes. But then I do not cringe at the thought of masturbation. I celebrate it.

Roger Tirazona

Feb 20th 2009, 14:44

Moreover with reference to the points in Question Mrs. Friggieri has brought up in defence to their banning the play let's consider these facts;

a) Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" is taught in Schools and is notable for its anti-semitic content;

b) Stitching does not ridicule or discredit the Jewish Holocaust. It is used in context where the character struggles with his sexual identity and tendencies.

c) Perversion is measured in comparison with other standards. What are these other standards? Self Set standards? how can you decide what is offensive or what is not? It is all subjective. What was Pornography a few hundred years ago, we call artistic nudes today. What was called magic and heresy a few hundred years ago we now call science. What was censored in South America in the 70's we now call Jesus Christ Superstar.

d) Sadomasochistic relationships are a fact of life. This market already claims a large proportion of Adult entertainment globally. It's a reality as I have explained in my previous post. Why run away from this aspect of reality? Especially if it is portrayed between consenting adults?

Roger Tirazona

Feb 20th 2009, 09:51

In the mind of a person where sexual gratification deviates from the norm, it is "normal" for this person to gain sexual gratification from objects or situations that are different from heterosexual or homosexual intercourse; hence fetishes and other "deviances". In a large population it is normal to find different levels of deviances from the norm to the extreme that people can do harmful things to themselves or others to gain sexual gratification. I don't think in stitching it goes to the extreme where Serial Killers murder others for sexual gratification as in MANY Hollywood movies.

Sexual deviance is a very wide and documented phenomenon that is openly and academically discussed and as a theme, should not be censored. Period. If it is good for university it's good for theatre! Modern society treats sexual life between 2 consenting adults as a private matter; as long as no harm is done to the self or to others. To call a person's personal life as degrading is something censorable because it is inconsiderate, judgmental, inhumane and segregating. People with different or abnormal sexual lives are out there. We just have to accept it.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 19th 2009, 07:39

@ K Pullicino:

Unfortunately you fail to make a distinction between a play that (among other things) treats the topic of paedophilia (if that is actually the case), and a play which actively supports or encourages paedophilia.

I've seen books and films made by Catholics displaying cases of drug abuse. This does not mean that the Catholic Church supports illegal drug use.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 19th 2009, 07:35

@ Ivan Grech Mintoff:

It is an obvious undisputable fact that driving on the wrong side of the road causes accidents, possibly fatal. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact.

Whether this play is drivel is a matter of opinion, and even if it was, it is not obviously harmful. In fact, most people would say it is not.

Joe Xuereb

Feb 18th 2009, 23:58

@ Alex Ellul. You are right. It is my personal clear vista view. It is a view bestowed on comparatively few people. Like the play we are discussing, I am expressing a view. I am publishing my script if you like. You watch the play, you read my script if, and only if, you choose to. Like any reading material, whether it be an elementary school primer or the densest Kafka, you read it. What you do with it is entirely up to you. What you push down your throat is your responsbility. Certainly not mine. I am aware that what I write will strengthen some and be rejected by others. Mission accomplished with me only moving fingers across a keyboard. A word of advice - you could tone down your aggression by realising that maybe, just maybe, there are people who know somethiing that you have not even began to start to dream about. And what is this contradiction about money spent to preserve cave drawing EVEN IF THEY ARE VERY OLD. What? And then end suggested performing artists stay away from (revered?) cave art? Is crap your latest word acquisition, now on your brain?

Ann DeMarco

Feb 18th 2009, 18:23

@K Pullicino. The answer to your question is no, because paedophilia is against the law, and therefore anyone opening displaying a case of paedophilia anywhere will be prosecuted under the law, and no 'desecrating' would be allowed. On the other hand, putting on a play which discusses the subject and perhaps shows the consequences of such acts, as we have seen recently in the theatre in a number of plays, is in no way a criminal act, and therefore a censor deciding to ban a play just because s/he doesn't like the subject matter or considers it shocking results in a blatant attack on freedom of expression.

K. Pullicino

Feb 18th 2009, 16:34

"If someone decides to openly display a case of paedophilia in theater, isn't that "DESECRATING" the children's right to dignity?"

With my question I was at no point ascertaining that the play contains any acts of paedophilia. But I couldn't help but ask the question whether a play including paedophilia, or any other obscene, derogatory act towards a group of people, would be staged because of Freedom of Expression?

You see, we're being so quick to go about saying we're all mature and "Oh, no, I'm about to be shut up by the state" that I can already see how we'll soon be accepting plays that are so much worse than whatever this play contains. And when that happens, we'll have Freedom of Expression so much entrenched in our society that we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves against unreasonable and unjustified expression.

Now go ahead, answer my question.

T Mifsud

Feb 18th 2009, 10:44

@Carmel Camilleri
Of course, about republic Street I agree with you, but there are places dedicated to do just that!
1) Hyde Park speaker's corner is one area where the tight UK racial laws are somewhat unofficially relaxed. If you go there you have to expect things you wuldn't like to hear.
2) Stand Up Comedy Shows, also aired on local TV around midnight are hilarious but most of them also include harsh swear words, explicit sexual stories and racial jibes which othrwise would be criminal in the streets of London.
3) The restaurant Parolacce in Rome is alsways fully booked. As soon as you enter the restaurant you are greeted with a swear words and degrading and maybe racial comments about you by the chef and waiters. People pay good money to go there and be amused. Read about it online.

BUT it's the people's choice. It is at a selected location. You go there to view and listen out of your own choice.

This is a uncompromisable sacred right both for the producers' freedom of speech and for the general public's general freedom of choice!

Pia Zammit

Feb 18th 2009, 10:35

@ K Pullicino. Without infringing your right to say what you want on this website I DO need to comment on your seemingly flawed understanding of the play. There are no, i emphatically repeat - NO, cases of paedophilia displayed - openly or otherwise in the play Stitching. why rely on hearsay?

Ivan Grech Mintoff

Feb 18th 2009, 09:55

@Kenneth Cassar

>What kind of argument is that?


Exactly the SAME kind of argument being put here to allow such drivel as this play to be put on.

And very well aptly put too(much better than my pervious crude attempts in other similar posts)!

The argument for this play to be allowed is:

-nobody decides for me what to DO or WATCH

-anyody over 18 should have the right to choose to go or not

This argment conveniently sidesteps the PRESENT LAW that:

-covers porngraphy, indecent public exposure, morality, racism etc

FACT 1 :Whether you/I agree with them or not, THESE LAWS ARE IN PLACE.

-the OBLIGATION for thegovernment to appoint the "Film and Stage Classification Board" to oversee that the above laws (and others) ARE NOT BROKEN.

FACT 2: Whether you/I like it or not , THESE LAWS ARE IN PLACE.

Now IF the above laws can be broken in the name of 'ART' (and this play is NOT art!!) then OTHER laws (like driving on the LHS of the road & MANY OTHERS!)can equally be broken 'in the name of Art' , simply because I don't like them.

Crusaders(sic!) should therefore not encourage law BREAKING by law AMENDMENT.

Mark A. Sammut

Feb 18th 2009, 09:40

To my understanding, the most equitable solution would be to allow the representation to be staged BUT with the TWO following sine qua non conditions:
1. An obligation on the people responsible to warn potential audience members as to the obscenity and/or other adult material (including possible offence to religious sentiments) and
2. An obligation on same to expunge any reference to/depiction of paedophilia.
Then the general public should be allowed to exercise its discretion as to how to spend its time and money.
In this way, the State (embodied in the Classification Board) would be defending the individual's right to freedom of expression, and the individual's right to be protected from modes of expression which s/he subjectively deems offensive.

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 09:15

@ Alex Ellul:

"Nobody can tell me on which side of the road I must drive, because the way I drive is called ART".

What kind of argument is that?

Kenneth Cassar

Feb 18th 2009, 09:06

@ K Pullicino:

I challenge you to substantiate your claim that the play displays paedophilia on stage.

Ann De Marco

Feb 18th 2009, 09:03

@Carmel Camilleri. 'As far as I know, if I were to go spank in the middle of Republic Street and start swearing at no-one in particular, or simply shouting obscenities, I would be arrested, thrown in a lock-up and probably prosecuted for offending public morals and decency and finally given a hefty fine'

That's ironic, considering that swearing in the middle of Republic Street is not such a rarity, and i've never seen anyone arrested for it. That being said, what on earth has that got to do with a few swear words in a play in front of an audience who chose to be there, and PAID to be there? Your reasoning is ridiculous, the passers by in Republic Street may be offended by your words, people who watch a play with adult content know what to expect and chose to watch it. It is not the same as performing it in the middle of a street. If a play is classified as 18 or adults only i think you would pretty much know what to expect, don't you?

Alex Ellul

Feb 18th 2009, 09:01

@Joe Xuereb: Your comment "..because of my crystal-clear vista..." only shows the self-conceited condition you may be living at this very moment. May I humbly comment that you have every right to believe whatever your intellect perceives but you may not push it down my troath by saying that what you see is crystal clear. What you see is only 'crystal clear ' according to your view.

Noel Zarb

Feb 18th 2009, 08:31

"The simple fact that an 18-year-old person could decide what to see and experience did not mean that the state did not have a duty to control what art, films and theatrical productions were being produced or presented."

"the script not only contained obscene language, but in some cases it also offended religious sentiment. It included decadent material, shameful and perverted content of a sexual and sadomasochistic content and even paedophilia. It also included references to the Auschwitz victims which exceeded all limits of public decency."

Mela, everyone stop renting Schindler's List (because i think that that movie exceeds all the limits in the Auschwitz story..but no..why ban it??? It's an oscar-winning movie). Other movies come to mind as well, Taken, HUMAN TRAFFICKING, The Passion of the Christ (which was a bit Gory). Then we should also stop watching and renting films like Wrong Turn. Why wasn't Equus Banned??? Why wasn't Blasted banned (with full frontal male nudity and gay sex and babies being eaten)?? I would like Ms Friggieri to answer me!

GiovDeMartino@Mrs.Friggieri

Feb 18th 2009, 08:30

Are the blue films screened regularly at a pareticular cinema censored. I do not think so because this has been going on for many many years. I would like to have an answer.

GiovDeMartino

Feb 18th 2009, 08:23

See that the law IS ENFORCED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe Xuereb

Feb 18th 2009, 08:06

People have a right to be 'offended'. And as such, make progress and get a life.
As an avowed atheist, I have a clarity of vision. A vista with no cobwebs one might say.
Ms Friggieri claims that 'religious sentiments' were insulted. May I remark, because of my crystal-clear vista) that I find it disturbing (never mind insultin) for a toddler to be held should-high to get the best view of very lifelike, three-dimentional statuary of execrable gore and flagellation and torture. The adult (mature?) can process this, the tourists sees it as mere street pageantry, quaint and interesting. But through the mind's eye of a toddler? This is child abuse of the most horrendous type. Nothing to do with religion. Countering that 'it is our culture' is no excuse. Cruel indoctrination of an unprotesting child that sets them up for a lifetime of guilt trips (like in the case of every sinful Cynth in the land) is no excuse.

Carmel Camilleri

Feb 18th 2009, 07:37

As far as I know, if I were to go spank in the middle of Republic Street and start swearing at no-one in particular, or simply shouting obscenities, I would be arrested, thrown in a lock-up and probably prosecuted for offending public morals and decency and finally given a hefty fine.

So what divine right gives the people who are staging this play the right to do exactly the above and get away with it? Their poetic licence? Art? What?

To me, if the performance is public and accessible to the public, it is equivalent to staging it in the middle of a crowded street and it should thus reflect the standards of the society that it is staged in. It is not a question of the audience knowing what it was going in for because if "stitching" had not been given all of this publicity, I would not have known what to expect from it, had I gone to see it.

Everyone has a right to freedom of expression, but that right is not absolute.

Charmaine Chetcuti

Feb 18th 2009, 07:26

I have never went to see plays...going to theatres is not something I look forward to but all this hype is making me eager to go watch Stitching....I would like to congratulate the Classification Board for the excellent PR job they did.....ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh it wasn't their intention to promote the play??????? :P

If it's not shown in Malta, I'm sure we can find the play on youtube or something.

I Laferla

Feb 18th 2009, 05:57

Yes we are democratic but we should also be reponsible! Democracy and freedom of speech does not mean doing anything, anywhere anytime. We have laws and yes, borderlines which define our beliefs. That is why drugs, abortion, killing etc are all punishable acts. What is this play portraying? Of course everyone has a right to choose but society has a moral right to teach what is good, better and best. If the Classification Board stopped the production of this play, the producer, director and actors must abide with this decision. Otherwise it undermines the Democracy.

Karl Farrugia

Feb 18th 2009, 00:14

I would allow anyone over 18 to watch such art. One should be able to decide for him/herself on ones moralities, what is decent, what is right and what is wrong. I do not need to be protected by any board, I need to be thought everything and then given the option to choose. Also known as informed decision.

I want to be able to CHOOSE. Choose what to see, what to believe in, what to acknowledge. I want CHOICE. It is my right.

c micallef

Feb 18th 2009, 00:12

Who is the government to decide if my morals will be offended or not. As a rational intelligent adult i have the right to choose what I watch, read and hear - and to decide for myself if its an expression i want to experience. Ms Friggieri your attitude is arrogant and condecsending.

It is dangerous to cushion people's lives from all the 'bad things' by 'bad people'..reality no matter how unpleasant should be explored and discussed because only then can it change or evolve.
Hiding unpleasant or obscene things don't make them any less real..in fact it fuels their power.

Martin Farrugia

Feb 18th 2009, 00:03

On the same token, we should perhaps ban the 8' o clock news as well....

Alex Ellul

Feb 17th 2009, 23:41

Nobody can tell me on which side of the road I must drive, because the way I drive is called ART. So dear lawmakers, get out of my way and let me drive in any which way I choose to.

Art is sacred and nobody can touch it. If we stretch the rubber band, evil will be turned into art (vide Nazi-art, Communist-art and now we have perverted-art). Anything can be done and anyone can be sacrificed in the name of art. But what is art? The prehistoric cave drawings are today considered as priceless art and millions of euros will be sacrificed to protect these even if these are as old as humanity itself. Since that time humanity has gotten itself out of the caves, built temples, made a million paintings and statues, great works of timeless literature, prose and poetry, while building itself a set of rules called morals that helped humanity get out of barbarism and into civilisation. Now we have the ersatz artists, who, in the name of their 'art' are breaking up all the moral rules by which civilisation falls. Go and enact your art inside the caves but not anywhere near the cave drawings.

John Smith

Feb 17th 2009, 23:15

I think Ms Friggieri should really resign.

Censorship has no place in this day and age.

We do not want to live in a Stalinist country, and we don't live in one.
Educate us on why we should not see this play, if you like.
But let people make their adult choices.

Charles Sammut

Feb 17th 2009, 23:11

Using the same yardstick, these six persons should also ban the Bible, Koran and the Talmund.

Peter Xuereb

Feb 17th 2009, 22:24

If a censor can see it, so can I.

Luciano Mule Stagno

Feb 17th 2009, 22:24

As long as what you do or say breaks no laws - no matter how distasteful, unconventional or "extreme" - you should have a right to say it - especially if it's in a forum where people have to CHOOSE to hear you (as in this case).

Alex Ellul

Feb 17th 2009, 22:14

This play will be enacted, it will raise a few eyebrows then we will all forget about it and it will be dumped in the trash heap of time, forgotten.

It's not a Shakespeare, a Warhol or a Pink Floyd. IN MY OPINION it is just a piece of literary crap similar to that piece of ART that consisted of a crucifix immersed in a jar full of urine and exhibited in New York funded by the state. It remains in our memory just because it is a perfect example of crap that someone decided for us that is is art.

This replica of crap is not funded by our taxes, but by those who will be attending the enactment.

We should not ban it, but let everyone to watch it for free. That way everyone will know what crap-art is

Christopher Ripard

Feb 17th 2009, 22:06

Firstly, let's keep it civil, please folks. Ms Friggieri, for whom I have the highest respect, is only doing her job as she sees fit, with a clear conscience. We should admire a person of principle, not slander her.

Secondly, will the legal beagles -a.k.a. Emy/Bocca - kindly acknowledge that, without limits, no true freedom exists? This is the very reason why Lawyers are a nevessary evil. The result of no limits - for which read laws - is . . . anarchy (and unemployed lawyers :)

Despite everything, I still think it should go up but only for very mature audiences. Next problem: who's to say who is mature?

Anyway, I won't be going - similarly to the Jazz festival, I suspect 90% of the audience will want to be seen, rather than see (or hear, in JF's case).

T Mifsud

Feb 17th 2009, 21:34

@Joseph Borg
Lets take the UK. You really cannot go further than the UK for its, for example, the racial equality laws, where almost the word black is taboo and Indians are exempt from wearing a motorcycle helmet bcause they have a turban. Yet still, if you go to a Stand Up Comedy in London (theatre like Stitching) you will get the lowest jibes and the most racial comments from the commedians. It's art, it's theatre

As Al Murray goes: "What's your name Sire?"
Member of the audience: "Mohammed"
Al Murray: " Beautiful British name!"

Adrian Borg

Feb 17th 2009, 21:04

Maybe the Classification Board should change its members to remain in compliance with the changing times?

Maybe the public should have a say as well which people to appoint ... I wonder whether the current board would stand a chance of being re-elected!

Maria Zammit

Feb 17th 2009, 21:01

Hmmm.... if you think this correspondence is going to make me more curious to see it... you're wrong dear friends.

If the law is for us citizens to abide by then it should be more so for producers of material that is supposed to educate not show depravity! Censorship has it's uses, in fact, we censor each other continuously under the guise of good manners. And that is right as it should be.

Some things you learn from... some only serve to make us slaves. From what I see around me, the world is not a better place with so much democracy after all. Don't you think?

This is all so very boring! Next subject pls...

Joseph Borg

Feb 17th 2009, 20:54

I am no moralist, and I believe in the freedom of expression but it doesn't mean that I should not follow sensible laws. Does freedom of expression as well as of thought give me the right, to swear, calling people names, drive the way I like so on and so forth. Borders exist in all our ways of life.

M. Xuereb

Feb 17th 2009, 20:48

For those who would like to know what it's all about, here is a descriptive review of the play published in The Guardian in 2002 when the play featured in the Edinburgh festival: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/aug/05/edinburgh02.edinburgh. Other, more recent reviews of the same play performed in NY described it as heavily-reliant on 'shock value'.

Back in 2002, some people walked out of it, so it's nice to be warned. But then it's up to the individual to decide if he/she wants to watch it or not. I would understand banning a public showing of it on the grounds that it could offend public sentiments, but the moment people have to pay to watch it, it becomes very much a private issue.

A Rizzo

Feb 17th 2009, 20:23

Who are they to tell me what is right and what is wrong?

Who are they to show me what to watch or not to watch?

Who-do-they-think-they-are?

c.t. busuttil

Feb 17th 2009, 20:20

Regrettably for some, but thankfully for others, we do have a Classification Board! Because we're all so democratic, we are going to abide by their decision.

J.Darmanin

Feb 17th 2009, 20:18

Dr. Bezzina, I agree 100% with what you said. 95% of gov insitutions are made up of idiots!!!

K. Pullicino

Feb 17th 2009, 20:04

"I AM A FREE PERSON IN AN INTELLECTUALLY LIBERATED COUNTRY - OR IS IT ?"

The fact that you opted to write everything using capital letters makes me doubt your statement very much.

Sometimes, I wish censorship was applied to some of the comments around many of the articles on this website... it's getting ever more tedious trying to make out the interesting, significant comments from the rubbish that gets posted.

Anyway, just a quick question: If someone decides to openly display a case of paedophilia in theater, isn't that "DESECRATING" (as Dr. Bezzina would nicely put it) the children's right to dignity? Ah, yes. I forgot... there's no money to be made from protecting these sorts of rights. Just don't dare touch my right to spout junk on some website though.

MSciberras

Feb 17th 2009, 20:01

Emy Bezzina LLD - I completely disagree with any censorship whatsoever but the censors did their job according to Maltese law. Its the law that must be changed, either legally or by parliament . As for being in breach of the constitution and European law - put your money where your (big) mouth is and test that in the courts, all the way to the European courts if necessary. If you are capable that is. If not leave the job to who is, because this shameful censorship must end.

Kevin Zammit

Feb 17th 2009, 19:57

@Ms Friggieri

"contained obscene language" ... "offended religious sentiment" ... "It included decadent material, shameful and perverted content of a sexual and sadomasochistic content"

sounds like the Taliban so far.

" and even paedophilia"

This would make the play illigal in about a 100 countries so let the law decide ... oops ... they have already done so and the writer was not sent to jail as far as I know.

"references to the Auschwitz victims" .... there are many references that are made to historical fact but hey ...

"which exceeded all limits of public decency" .... your decency not ours the 'public' ... last I checked I had no say.

M Vella

Feb 17th 2009, 19:56

And then "Democratic Countries" criticise China for filtering certain websites! This is plainly the same but disguised in a way to look better. Malta does not need any people who from their pedestal patronise us and decide for us!! When will Malta rise and fight for its rights like other nations do?! Sirna poplu passiv u naccettaw kollox!

Matthew Borg Cardona

Feb 17th 2009, 19:50

To the producers of the play: I hope you will not be stopped from putting up the play, but if you are then: Please produce it anyway and upload it on some site (YouTube?) for all of us to see.

Let's see them try to censor that !

Nigel Lawrence

Feb 17th 2009, 19:42

Malta leaps, majestically, into the Seventeenth century!

Andrew Gatt

Feb 17th 2009, 19:37

Blah blah blah. Mature adults should have the right to choose whether to see this play or not. Go, or don't go. Your choice. Free world. We certainly don't need these fossilised attitudes and diktats.

Paul Caruana

Feb 17th 2009, 19:34

Irrepective of how controversial and tasteless this play may be, it is totally unacceptable in a democratic society to allow the general ban of a play by a group of appointed 'guradians of public morals'.

Rather, it should have been made clear that the viewing such a play must be limited to an over 21 audience.

Alfred Camilleri

Feb 17th 2009, 19:04

I would very much like to make the acquaintance of those exalted superior beings who make up the Film and Stage Classification Board, mentioned by the chairman of the same Board.
It seems for Ms Friggieri that, because the play was reviewed by three persons and then again by another three, instead of the usual one, is enough to qualify the Board to ban the play outright and disallow the rest of us ordinary mortals to see the play.

Although I am not a fan of Maltese theatre, I have a mind to defy these arrogant censors and go and watch the play when it is put up.

Incidentally, isn't the name of the Board a misnomer. My dictionary defines 'classification' as categorization; grading; sorting among other meanings, but does not include censoring; banning or suppressing as has been done in this case.

K. Vella

Feb 17th 2009, 19:01

What's the next step? Government setting up a huge firewall to control what we view on the net?

j.Bonnici

Feb 17th 2009, 18:46

This is now turning into a farce. Now matter how it ends, the Board will only be exposing itself to ridicule.

Dr EMMY BEZZINA,LL.D.,S.Th.,B.A.,

Feb 17th 2009, 18:46

Regret to inform that THE CONSTITUTION has been violated,the European Convention has been infringed and EU Laws have been desecrated: NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO DICTATE TO ME WHAT I SEE,HEAR,WATCH,EVALUATE & APPRECIATE: I AM A FREE PERSON IN AN INTELLECTUALLY LIBERATED COUNTRY - OR IS IT ? THE ORGANIZERS OF THE PRODUCTION SHOULD SUE FOR DAMAGES THE COBWEBBED CENSORS` BOARD - the very word CENSORS makes me feel nauseated.THE BOARD should RESIGN IMMEDIATELY AS THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DETERMINE FOR THE REST OF OUR COMMUNITY - AS A CITIZEN I OBJECT TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE SIX PERSONS REFERRED TO,ALL OF WHOM ARE WELL KNOWN IN LOCAL CIRCLES AS ARE THEIR VIEWS ON CERTAIN ISSUES: SO OUT WITH YOU ALL & RESIGN. NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO BAN ANYTHING THESE DAYS - IN WHICH CASE THERE ARE A MILLION THINGS TO BAN,SO LET US NOT BE HYPOCRETICAL PLEASE.
Naturally these so-called CENSORS [ What IDIOT APPOINTED THEM?]ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION,BUT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IMPOSE THEIR MYOPIC IDIOCY ON ME:THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF REQUESTING THEM TO RECONSIDER,IT IS DEMANDING THAT THEY RESIGN:THIS BIGOTISM MUST END ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Andrew Borg-Cardona

Feb 17th 2009, 18:12

This is nothing but arrogance. Let the rest of us (those of us who want to) see the thing and make up our own minds - stop telling us what's good for us, we're not citizens of a Nanny State.

Or are we?

steve busuttil

Feb 17th 2009, 18:08

DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.Zammit

Feb 17th 2009, 18:08

To me all this hype is making this play more popular. I have never gone to see a play in my life, but am dying to go to see this. Dont we remember the ban on life of brian film, ir was it the last temptation of christ ? What did we all do ? We imported the DVD/Videoby the thousands. And what about the whole hype the Church had created about the film, that I believe was also partly filmed in Malta, Da Vinci Code ? What is the first thing we all did when the Church made all that hype not to see that Film and tried to ban it ? Well I dont know about you, but I went to see it. Ironically I might not have seen it had the hype not be stirred up.

Dear Classification Board, you remind me of the middle ages. Because of you, if this play is still going to be shown I and many others are going to have to see it!!!! Thank you for protecting, me. I really need that, because I am middle-aged and cannot fend for myself.

K. Pullicino

Feb 17th 2009, 17:57

Democracy somehow gives one the right to go watch "decadent material, shameful and perverted content of a sexual and sadomasochistic content and even paedophilia". Hmm...

M Borg

Feb 17th 2009, 17:55

Perhaps Mrs. Friggieri should realise that she is not the state and shouldn't control what people see as well!