Patrick Cooke
Producers of banned play prepared to take case to European Court
Stitching director Chris Gatt: "Text needs the actors to give it meaning." Photo: Chris Sant Fournier.
A fully dressed couple writhe violently on a living room floor as they fight for possession of a sex toy, watched attentively by a small adult crowd.
The living room in question is in a maisonette, an unusual venue and possibly too close to home for a small group of journalists to watch a full rehearsal of Stitching, Unifaun's latest production that has been controversially banned by the Board of Classification on the basis of its script.
When the rehearsal ends, a lively discussion ensues as to how it made people feel. Words such as "achingly sad", "confusing" and even "hopeful" were bandied about. Anthony Neilson's play might discuss abortion, but the audience almost unanimously agreed it is actually pro-life. None of those watching could understand why the play was axed.
Audiences at St James Cavalier may see it differently, if the play is ever performed there. But director Chris Gatt maintains it is impossible to judge the play without first seeing it performed so that 'offensive' lines can be understood in context.
"It is absurd for the censors to give their interpretation of the play without seeing it performed... the text is a work of art that is only half-formed, it needs the actors to give it meaning," Mr Gatt said.
He took exception to comments made by analyst Fr Joe Borg during last Friday's Xarabank when he read lines from the script aloud.
"Why can't the actors speak these 'offensive' lines in context to a willing audience of 900, yet those opposed are able to reel off these lines to an audience of tens of thousands totally out of context? They have breached the ban!"
Stage Classification Board chairman Therese Friggieri argues that the script in question not only contains obscene language but in some cases offends religious sentiment. It includes decadent material, shameful and perverted content of a sexual and sado-masochistic nature and references to the Auschwitz victims, which "exceeded all limits of public decency", she said.
The controversy is even gaining attention abroad. The theatre blog of The Guardian in the UK carries an article which expresses incredulity that a play can be banned in a European country, and it directs readers to a facebook group with over 700 members that opposes the ban.
It says: "Stitching has been banned in Malta. Yes, banned. Banned in a democratic European country due to host one of 2018's capital of culture celebrations."
Unifaun is prepared to take its case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if necessary.
Unifaun lawyer Michael Zammit Maempel said the producers planned to cite the Handyman v UK case in the European Court of Human Rights (1976), which resulted in the ruling that freedom of expression is "applicable not only to 'information and ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no 'democratic society'."
Rudiger Dossow, secretary for the sub-committee on the media committee on culture, science and education at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, has not seen the play but he is not aware of any cases in recent times where a play has been banned completely by a classification board.
"It always depends on the facts, but a total ban is the most severe. When a play has extreme content like nudity and sex, it can be made 'adult only' and that is usually enough," he said.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression, but adds that since this carries with it duties and responsibilities, it may be subject to restrictions prescribed by (national) law for the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the reputation or rights of others, among other things.
Mr Dossow said that on matters of morals and ethics, the European Court had consistently held that national judges were in a better position to evaluate whether a restriction was necessary in their democratic society.
He also said he did not think it was common elsewhere for theatre scripts to be submitted to censors, and that plays were usually performed at a theatre company's own risk of prosecution if it was found to violate national laws.
"It becomes very complicated to ban the performance of a play based on its script because you, me and our friends could perform it in a garden somewhere," he said.
A report by six experts from the Council of Europe who visited Malta in 2002 recommended that stage censorship should be abolished because it is "inconsistent with the principles of the Council of Europe and the European Union".
Lord Andrew McIntosh, a member of the House of Lords in London and chairman of the sub-committee on the media at the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, said that although the council discouraged censorship, it was not unheard of for plays to be banned in member countries in the far east of Europe, such as Russia.
He also cited an example of a play called Behzti which was pulled from a theatre in Birmingham, UK, in 2004, after violent protests by Sikhs who were offended by its content, although this play was axed by the theatre and not by a government censorship board.
The Theatres Act abolished censorship of theatre in the UK in 1968.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
29 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 24th 2009, 21:03
Errata. Apologies. I meant to write 'the reed must be supple. Being pliant (flexible) it bows to the breeze and survives. It it is rigid and inflexible, it breaks and is no more. The religious friend slyly (but not enough) retorted that a reed can be destroyed by fire(?). I said that some people can never be reached. And I prove this to myself time and time again. As they say, you cannot win them all.
GiovDeMartino
Feb 24th 2009, 18:30
To me civilizations means destroying ALL the kazini of the oppostion, burn a printing press, destroy the house of the leader of the opposition, destroy the curia, desatroy the headqrs of the MUT, disrupt all political manifestations organized by the opposition, torture and murder some of those under investigation, shpoot on kazini and murder someone, lock out any worker who dares obey his union's directives, prohibit the opposition from holding any meeting in certain places..Today we are OPPRESSED because the censors banned a particular play. This time I will not survive the shock.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 24th 2009, 17:22
cont./ Joseph A. Borg. The nays, equally capable of reason one may presume, can come to their own conclusion whether the production of Stitching can go ahead unhindered and unmolested and unvilified. How they deal with the matter is entirely up to them. They do not have to buy a seat and see it. If they see it they do not have to take it on board (as with anything else). If they get all smug because there are blasphemy laws in place. Well, that may be so. For the moment. But we are now part of a much larger, more liberal bloc. The shoring up a special brand of Maltese 'taliban' morality does not wash any more. Laws are not, like some mythical ten comandments, etched in stone. The times they are a-changing. The reed must be subtle and bend with the breeze. If it does recognise and practise subtlety, it will break. I said this to a religious fellow acquaintance of mine some while back. He thought he was clever and retorted that a reed can be destroyed by fire. Metaphors were obviously lost on him. There are people one cannot reach. They are heavily invested in whatever.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 24th 2009, 17:10
giovDeMartino. Are you real? It is interesting you should bring up civlisation. To me a civilisation that fosters a mentality that thinks it appropriate to burn down a neighbour's front door merely because said neighbour is seen as not on the arsonist's side - that Giovannin is a frightening situation. And as for you starting to admire in people's power to defend their belief (whatever this means), it rather sounds like you are admiring yourself for your p;ower to defend your belief. One word of advice. Make sure that whatever you defend in life is worth the sweat. I have answered the best way given the quality of the messages you send out. did my best. It is now your responsibility to unravel your thoughts and try to make sense to yourself at least if nothing else. If there was a god I'd pray for patience. As it is I will have to go it alone. As usual.
Joseph A Borg. I have not seen Stitching nor am I likely to. Both the ayes and the nays do not need to see this play. The ayes, piece unseen but reasonable, can reason why the play is entirely harmless. cont./
giovDeMartino
Feb 24th 2009, 08:21
We are oppressed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!How funny. How very, very, very funny. Where were you in the 70's and 80's? We could not even call ourselvbes Maltese!!!!!!!!!!!! The MAIN NOT Malta football association. Nathinal Pharmacy NOT National Pharmacy. Still There. Help, help, I am having a heart attack.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 23rd 2009, 18:43
De Martino. If by a country you understand its people - rather than a mere lump of rock - one must be careful what appellatives one uses to describe it. Malta is indeed civilised in a very general sense. But what I sense is a people who, for whatever reason, are very insecure, inward looking in a bad sense, outward looking in the worst sense possible. And at the moment, all this is coming together to form a very sad, rather frightened people. Not the hallmark of a very civilised nation. You see when a people are oppressed, something has got to give. Esempio lampante. Malta.
Joseph A Borg
Feb 23rd 2009, 18:37
many nay sayers in the comments below cannot make a distinction between portraying/sharing and disseminating an idea with an actual act. Now wearing a seat belt or abusing children or abortion…are acts that are and should be regulated by law for practical purposes, but ideas should be free and disseminating ideas is protected in the constitution. If the shocked crowd is such a bunch of ninnies, as to be hurt by a few words and ideas portrayed in a theatre performance, then our society has the stamina of a kindergarten. Like children afraid of their own shadow. I don't know how you can build a dynamic, innovative and competitive society to beat the world's best, when you cannot even stage a 'controversial' play! What I find shocking is that many commenters haven't read or seen the play and are getting hot under the collar for nothing much.
GiovDeMartino@ S. Grima
Feb 23rd 2009, 17:14
Either I have a right not to wear a seat belt or I shall have to pay a fine! I am obliged to wear my seat belt because someone in authority has decided to restrict my freedom. Someone has to have his final word and we have to obey it. In this case the producers are publicly declaring that they will be breaking the law. The authorities are OBLIGED to see that this does not happen. We are living in a civilised country and laws have to be obeyed.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 23rd 2009, 15:17
@ Joseph Schembri. It is nauseating when people go to a couple of art exhibitions and speak as if they know all about art, and being very selective with its interpretation. The art repertoire is vast and frequenting galleries and so on, however admirable, is impractical. And a thankless task in any case, unless done with the right frame of mind. Very difficult endeavour, art. But we do have the internet literally at the tip of our fingers. No need to go to the Prado in Madrid for enlightenment. Talking of the Prado, look up Francisco Goya y Lucientes in Artiss Prints by AllPosters.co.uk (Goya, he of Catholic Spain circa 1815). There are a vast number of his works for anyone's delectation at the flick of a button. Admirable are his numerous works like The Parasol. Or The Wine Harvest. And numerous others of a religious theme. Right up your street Schembri. But then Goya also did his war etchings. Saturn devouring one of his sons comes to mind. Or Cannibals devouring human flesh. Or Lunatic Asylum. Works not meant to entertain but to enlighten Joe. And don't forget, if ever there was a genious, that genious was Goya.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 23rd 2009, 14:48
@ J. Farrugia. And what do YOU think of people who are prepared to murder for their deity of choice? For this tactic alone, I find your reasoning most unsavoury at its worse and hollow trying to be kind. Have you never been told that moral blackmail, as indeed any blackmail, invariably backfires? Hurry along now! Continue shoring up your investments. And good luck to you. I really mean that.
steve grima
Feb 22nd 2009, 20:55
@You GiovDeMartino
You do have a right to drive without a seat belt but then you have a duty to pay the fine!
a darmanin
Feb 22nd 2009, 20:49
I am not interested in such local plays, but if Unifaun is to perform it I will for sure be part of the audience. Thanks for this free adverisment!
J Farrugia
Feb 22nd 2009, 20:29
While agreeing with Giovanni Demartino, a gentleman if ever there was one in the whole of Malta, government should sack immediately the person who wants to flout the law in St James Cavalier, Chris Gatt! The arrogance of these 'progressive libertarians' is too much to stomach. Universal Human rights stop where those rights infringe other people's rights. To klll a baby is no human right , to divorce is no human right, to throw a crucifix in unpure water is no human right and I defy all these 'progressives' and 'libertarians' : why not put an islamic or other religions' symbols', and then talking about human rights? I bet my last dime that I will see the author and all those actors living like Salman Rushdie is doing... away from it all. But to incite against the catholic religion which is recognised by our Constitution, this is PROGRESSIVE and LIBERTARIAN!! Thank God we catholics are not vindicative like the islamic fundamentalists are. Otherwise their heads will not be worth a dime.
GiovDeMartino
Feb 22nd 2009, 18:57
Of course not wearing a seat belt is not a right, abortion is! By the way: who are you to say that I have no right to drive w/o a seat belt?
steve grima
Feb 22nd 2009, 18:19
to wear a seatbelt or a helmet while driving is not a right Mr. De martino, it's a duty.
Fabien Sant Fournier
Feb 22nd 2009, 16:09
Dr.Damai; we have already had theatrical performances last year which have featured full frontal male nudity whilst simulating anal sex, female nudity, simulation of oral sex, child cannibalism, torture, drug use etc..
The above were given the go ahead by the same classification board, yet stitching which is tame in comparison has not....why?
GiovDeMarftino
Feb 22nd 2009, 15:44
Is m,y English so horrible that Lynn Zahra did not understand what I said?Steve Grima says that NO one is to interfere with the rights of the individual. Try to drive your car without seat belts or your motor cycle without crash helmets. AS LONG AS THE LAW IS THERE, IT SHOULD BE ENFORCED. I ask again. What rights? To murder your unborn child? I am beginning to admire those who do everything in their power to defend their beliefs.
Jason Spiteri
Feb 22nd 2009, 15:34
DeMartino misses the point completely: banning this play is illegal under Malta's own laws. Malta's own laws FULLY incorporate both EU laws and the european convention of human rights. The European Convention court is only called in to make sure our courts apply the rights which our government signed up to.
His reference to the urine jar obviously shows he watched Xarabank. Can he really not have notcied the relish with which the priest ont he panel spat out each and every vulgarity and provocation? Could this play have been more obscene or offensive than the performance this priest gave on that talk show?
gaile amato
Feb 22nd 2009, 14:15
This play has been given the forbidden fruit treatment and so it is guaranteed to be a hit if or when it is staged. had it been ignored and presented I'm sure that by now noone would be talking about it. Fr. As for whether it's art or not, frankly I feel that shocking an audience by means of disgusting obscenities is not art.
Dr. John Damai
Feb 22nd 2009, 13:51
Why only a sex toy, why not have live sex in this play? Why not just invite the whole audience for an orgy and just cut the red tape? Where are we to draw the line? Once we open the door, it would be impossible to shut out any opportunity to keep what we have left of our morals. This is just a stunt by the directors to become known, nothing else. People used to become famous on pure talent but talent is not easy to possess. For these derelicts, by gaining their 15 minutes of fame, we get to sacrifice the most fragile thing we have left, our morals. Keep it up.
steven grima
Feb 22nd 2009, 12:56
@ Giov de Malrtino
Sovereign states are made up of individuals. NO ONE should be allowed to interfere with the rights of individuals. if the play was to be screened on TV it would be a different matter but since it is being acted on stage and viewed only by those who choose to go and see it then it should not be banned. as an example I believe sex toys are available in malta although they are not displayed in shops they can be bought by anyone who likes this sort of 'entertainent'.
Joe Xuereb
Feb 22nd 2009, 12:43
Oh dear! No one must interfere with sovereign Malta's laws! It is a mindset problem. As long as audiences continue to look at theatre-going as merely source of entertainment, they they will continue to misunderstand the concept of theatre as education. Theatre is information giving with impact. Those who are shocked by content are elsewhere in their mind. Hence, incapable of making an informed decision as we way. Audiences have to be prepared for that which they do not know. Maybe a program with a synopis and footnotes for the parts deemed controversial by they uninformed. Impractical I am afraid because such a program would run into volumes. And then some more.
Note. If art is merely for entertainment, how come that whenever it was in the 1800s, Francisco Goya, in Catholic Spain, was producing work and etchings that were hardly entertaining but a shuddering wake-up call for people to know what was happening around them. That was Catholic Spain. 150 years ago(?). Other examples abound of course. But not in Malta. Maltese art is about liking being shocked at a martyr's entrails all over the floor as at the Museum of Fine Arts in South Street.
Lynn Zahra
Feb 22nd 2009, 12:30
Well, well , well, miracles will happen! Gio.Demartino is saying that Mintoff was right for once ! (in censoring Raid on Entebbe!
Joe Vassallo
Feb 22nd 2009, 12:17
@ Giov De Martino
You’re living in a time warp – what has Mintoff’s time got to do with this?
If you want to go back to history you should be man enough to revisit the Gonzi days – do you remember them? The days when our fathers were buried in the mizbla?
Where were you then Mr. De Martino when the Church abusing the sacrament of confession?
Do you miss those “glorious” days?
Joseph Schembri
Feb 22nd 2009, 11:52
I do not agree with any form of censoring as long as adult people are warned of what to expect. So please let this obscure little play come to its sad little end.
On the other hand I am in 'stitches' at the attempts by so called artists to attract attention by parading grossness as art. I have been there, I have seen that and I have done that... as the popular ad goes. I will certainly not waste my time on such a play which substitutes class with repugnant scenes. I have been to too many exhibitions where so called artists running out of ideas use the shock value to try and attract media attention.
People have fallen for the tactics used by this so called play writer and the producer. Guys, come to your senses - intelligent people do not need grossness to stimulate their intellect. In my book intelligent writing is all about being subtle.
GiovDeMartino
Feb 22nd 2009, 11:50
Human rights? Who decides what human rights are? Those who say that a woman has THE RIGHT TO MURDER her unborn child? Human rights to have someone vilifying the belief of the majority? Shame on that producer or whatever he is who in front of half the population did not have the moral courage to declare that he wouldn't , CERTAINLY, ACCEPT TO PUT A CRUCIFIX IN A JAR FULL OF URINE. Shame on him. Is that human rights? Is that ART?
Marion Pace
Feb 22nd 2009, 11:09
Mr Demartino in Mintoff's time we werent part of the EU. So now what the EU says, gos.
Fabien Sant Fournier
Feb 22nd 2009, 10:49
I don't agree...when local laws break human rights we should be able to get assistance from th European courts. I consider this scandal a big problem & threat to our cultural development!
What are we waiting for to have this archaic law removed & thus remove the power that the 'classification' board is using as justification?!
GiovDeMartino
Feb 22nd 2009, 10:05
I do hope, anzi I EXPECT the Maltese government DOES NOT GIVE IN to anyone and ensure that the law is observed. The authorities are expected to prevent a crime rather than allowing nthe crime to happen and then take steps against the culprits. This is a sovereign state and NO ONE should be allowed to interfere with our internal problems , if you can casll them, problems. No one opened his mouth when Mintoff banned the film Raid on Entebbe.