Censor censorship now

I honestly cannot live with the idea that some authority has the power to invade my life and prohibit me from watching a play at the theatre.

I cannot live with the idea that a handful of persons can use their subjective analysis to prohibit me from attending a cultural production, independently of how shocking, ugly, beautiful or controversial this production may be.

I agree with the idea that an authority provides an age limit in order to safeguard minors from potentially shocking theatrical productions or that it imposes the need of advising theatre-goers of the shocking and disturbing scenes a play might contain. I cannot, however, live with the idea that a board somewhere dictates to me, an adult citizen, what to see or not to see at the theatre.

Not only that. I feel that it is my duty to condemn the mere idea of an authority or board having the power to censor altogether theatrical production, like it did in the last days for the first time in at least a decade.

For the benefit of the very few who still don't know what has happened recently in the theatrical scene, Unifaun Productions has been prohibited to produce the play Stitching written by the Scot playwright Anthony Neilson. The play, which should have premiered at St James Cavalier on February 13, was described as being "an insult to human dignity from beginning to end" by the chairman of the board that classifies films and theatrical productions.

The issue is not whether Stitching is an insult to human dignity or otherwise. The issue is whether adults have the right to attend any theatrical production, independently of the shocking content of the production de quo. I firmly believe that, yes, every adult citizen has the right to watch even the most shocking play ever written in human history and that nobody has the right to censor art.

For the record, Stitching is far from being the most insulting piece of art ever written. According to the Sunday Times of London, the play "explodes with power, discipline, integrity and sheer cruel psychological accuracy" while the Daily Telegraph described it as "shattering, shocking, a serious, persuasive account of the blind alleys love can lead us down".

What's even worse is the way with which the producers of Stitching were treated by the authorities. They were even interrogated by the police following their public statement that despite the censorship they will produce the play nonetheless.

This is pathetic. It reminds me of the persecution which Salman Rushdie passed through following the publication of The Satanic Verses. After all, Malta is a member state of the European Union and a signatory to the European Convention for Human Rights and, thus, a stalwart of freedom of expression.

The essence of freedom of expression is the freedom to express ideas which offend, shock or disturb. As the landmark case Handyside explains: Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual's self-fulfilment. Subject to certain parameters, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.

This episode is a comedy of errors from start to finish. At the same time that the production of Stitching was censored, people could perfectly go to the main booksellers and buy the script of the play, meaning that Stitching could be perfectly read but not seen!

Not to mention the fact that adults can perfectly surf the internet and zap satellite channels and not only view the most shocking artistic plays ever written but also the most crude and artless pornographic material! So adult citizens in Malta can perfectly watch the porno divas give vent to basic instincts any time of the day, for all the days of the week, but cannot watch a piece of art, shocking and ugly as it may be at the theatre!

It's all so stupid. Even the very fact that Maltese citizens can, of course, watch Stitching in the theatres of any other European city but not in their own country smacks of absurdity.

The government, in this issue, should have censored the censor.

As Salman Rushdie himself had said: "What does freedom of expression mean if not the liberty to be provocative, to be intriguing and to show your version of human life?"

I wish to extend all my appreciation to Unifaun Productions, to Chris Gatt, Adrian Buckle and Michael Zammit Maempel and all the actors which will take part in the play. As much as Socrates has said that citizens are morally allowed not to obey unjust laws, I agree with Unifaun's view to produce the play notwithstanding the censorship.

After all, the stupid mind cannot but reduce philosophy into triviality, science into superstition and art into something lacking creativity and audacity. And, therefore, censorship!

Dr Bonnici is a Labour member of Parliament.