Christian Peregin
Politicians call for debate on satire limits
MPs from both political parties have called for a debate to revamp the laws that determine what kind of costumes and behaviour should be tolerated during carnival.
Their comments follow the Nadur carnival controversy where nine people were charged with offences related to offensive behaviour, including a 26-year-old who received a one-month suspended sentence for dressing up as Jesus Christ.
News of police action came after Archbishop Paul Cremona and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech condemned the incident.
When contacted, a number of MPs agreed that certain laws needed to be changed, but some insisted that attention was required when it came to religion.
Labour's education spokesman Evarist Bartolo said that the laws were outdated and a "hangover from the 30s". He said the Maltese should be able to make fun of themselves, and that religion should be no exception.
"I think Christ had a sense of humour. Someone dressing up as Christ does not threaten my religious beliefs," he said.
He linked the court cases to the banning of the play Stitching, and asked whether Malta was preparing to introduce "religious wardens" to keep a watchful eye on everything that could be offensive.
"Carnival the world over is subversive. It is about breaking taboos and it is about excess," he said.
Parliamentary Secretary Chris Said, a former mayor of Nadur who has been involved in the organisation of its carnival, also welcomed a discussion on what costumes should be allowed, but stood firmly against poking fun of any religion.
He said the country had changed a great deal since the laws were put in place and amendments were probably necessary especially when it came to political satire.
He also said that although the police had a duty to enforce the law, in his experience as mayor it was more effective to tell people to change their costumes on the night than to take the issue to court.
"Out of 20,000 people, someone is bound to make a mistake. Many people do not even know that wearing such costumes is illegal," he said.
Nationalist MEP David Casa, in a recent opinion piece on The Times, said he disagreed with the disciplinary action taken and that a parliamentary debate was needed to revamp the laws to ensure that Malta did not revert to the "Middle Ages".
Labour MP Owen Bonnici agreed that people should be allowed to poke fun at politicians and to wear uniforms during carnival, but stressed that it was not right to offend religious sentiments.
He said it did not make sense to be too strict on these matters, and that asking an 'offender' to be more careful next time would have been more effective.
"Unfortunately, we seem to be going back to a conservative outlook of freedom of expression," he added.
Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi said he would love to see political caricatures on carnival floats, but when it came to religion there was a big red line that needed to be drawn, because it was "the most intimate of sentiments".
He said that freedom of expression was not just about the freedom to do as you please, but the will to do what was right.
Labour environment spokesman Leo Brincat said censorship policies needed to be revamped to allow Malta to become "a truly liberal and secular state". He said religion needed to be respected but there should be a more liberal approach to such laws.
Former culture minister and MP Francis Zammit Dimech said carnival was a family event celebrated in public, so even a spontaneous event like that of Nadur needed to be within the limits of the law. He added that he would welcome a discussion on where to draw the limits since these changed with time. "I don't think it should be illegal to dress up like an angel, for instance," he said, emphasising that there needed to be a clear distinction between dressing up for a laugh, and dressing up to provoke and offend.
Labour whip Joe Mizzi said that dressing up as a religious figure should not be seen to be offensive, but vilifying something like the crucifix could be and, therefore, a debate was needed.
14 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Mar 16th 2009, 21:44
There is a difference, and a great difference, between dressing up for a pageant and dressing up for carnival. Carnival, from its very nature, is there to make fun of, to ridicule. Religion, Christ and sacred persons or things are not subject to ridicule. This is the teaching of our dear Catholic Church. We follow her teaching as our guidance, not what is done abroad. Ridiculing Religion is a step to despise Religion and later to abandon Religion. We are not going to give any change to the devil and those who want to follow him to do this in our Catholic islands. For the great majority of Maltese and Gozitans our Catholic Religion is very precious and deep in our hearts.
Gregorio Guccione
Mar 16th 2009, 18:05
Malta is too conservative and many things are censored (when there is no point in censoring them ex. Stitching play). When are our leaders going to wake up and become a bit more modern then being still stuck in the 50s? Its something that worries me a bit, even the fact that religion still has so much power over our nation. We are the only nation in the world that doesnt have divorce. But why? Does getting divorced offend someone? Or so that our leaders look nice in front of other ones? i dont know if i explained myself well. But once conversative(ism) was mentioned I was thinking about what i just wrote and I felt like writing what i thought. i love malta, but thinking about how conservative and how many censorships there are in these islands just makes me sick. Is it that maltese are scared of progress? i really think so, and i hope that one day there would be a leader (of any form) able to brake the many taboos we have. Im not talking about legalising drugs or legalise prostitution, but i think that laws are made to protect people and not punish them.
Anthony Magri
Mar 16th 2009, 11:40
I don't know whether the published photo is the one that lead the same person to be charged a suspended sentence. This being said a remark is not out of place. Without trying to offend anyone neither tradition: what has the flag in the hands of the statue of Jesus resurrected has to do with the celebration of the event. When was it introduced? Is it liturgical? Does it have a political or religious connotation? Is it only to be found in Malta? If answers to these questions are positive, then the person concerned was perhaps only trying to refer to the flag. Is it accepted and respectful to represent Jesus waving a whatever flag even as a symbol?
Think about it persons concerned.
Ramon Casha
Mar 16th 2009, 06:08
Actually, although I knew about the law against dressing up as soldiers, policemen or priests and nuns, I did not know there was a law against dressing up as Jesus, the apostles or other historical figures. I wonder which specific law they broke. Can someone cite the exact article?
William P Flynn
Mar 15th 2009, 22:06
How does this differ from the youth carnival in Sydney when actors acted the Via Sagra for the pope? Or the passion re-enactments in the Philippines, blood and all?
I find these extremely offensive and disgusting; but they need to be allowed in a free secular system. So I just look the other way.
Did Jesus walk out of his tomb with the flag of St George of England?
Joe Zammit
Mar 15th 2009, 20:21
Satire is accepted as a literary form of writing but it must have limits. It is limited by the law of God and by our Criminal Law. Freedom of speech is limited as well because we are living in a society. No one has the freedom of speech to slander others. Religion, then, is sacred and admits no ridicule. Ridiculing religion or Christ for that matter is deeply devilish. We are not going to permit anyone to ridicule our sacred religion under some excuse, e.g. carnival. We are free, we have freedom of speech in Malta but our freedom is limited by God's law and our Criminal Law.
Henriette Mifsud
Mar 15th 2009, 19:43
Refering to all those who want to make believe that to be up to date and not living in the middle ages everything should be permissive, no censorship, no limits as otherwise we are outdated. But we in little Malta should be proud to defy all the other states where there is no control, no morality, no ethics, no religion. What are the consequences resulting from all this permissivness? It is enough to read the newspapers daily. And coming to the Nadur carnival
how would one like to see his mother or his wife ridiculed and made fun of because it is carnival and so it's time for fun and what's not.
Melanie Wilberforce
Mar 15th 2009, 17:27
I came to visit family in Nadur over the Carnival period and found it fun. However, it seems strange that certain costumes were so problematic when the Nazi and Jewish prisoners were not only allowed but have their picture on Nadur Council's flickr website. To my mind that (especially what they were doing) could be deemed far more offensive than someone dressing up in any religious costume.
If you're going to limit / censor costumes you're treading a very fine line, so many people are offended by so many different things whilst others will find them mundane. I wouldn't want to proscribe anything based my own very secular beliefs and yet find that often people of faith (various religions but mainly Christians and Muslims) try to make me conform to their belief system. Why shouldn't I be offended by someone telling me that I'm not allowed to dress up on Hallowe'en or Carnival as it disturbs their religious sensibilities?
Joe Fenech
Mar 15th 2009, 17:10
Guys, lets be serious. These last 20 years democracy has seriously been threatened. There has been a need to comply and to watch what you say. It's VERY dramatic. People who were part of pressure groups who have tried to express their views were taken to court. The same people were taken to court because the president felt offended after 'being called names' (!). Has anyone ever watched UK, French or Italian journalism or satirical progress. We're mies away from that freedom of speech.
SOS DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jesmond Micallef
Mar 15th 2009, 17:01
May I suggest a different perspective here : Are films like Monty Pyton's Life Of Brian banned in Malta, censored or whatever ??
M Pace
Mar 15th 2009, 15:47
Enough already!
Joe Zammit
Mar 15th 2009, 10:53
Evarist, you are completely wrong. Dressing up as Christ is one thing, but misbehaving immorally and wickedly while being dressed up thus is different. Religion is sacred from its very nature. Evarist, I suggest to you that instead of reading thrash, read and meditate every day the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Remember that most labourites are practising Catholics and are hurt when they listen what you have said about Religion.
Catholic Malta first and foremost == Malta Kattolika l-ewwel u qabel kollox
Joe Zammit
Mar 15th 2009, 10:46
Carnival is a time for enjoyment but the enjoyment must be morally good. Carnival is no excuse to indulge in immorality. No crimes are allowed in carnival. This report is already clearly headlined: "... on satire limits". So our politicians are already admitting 'limits' to satire and these limits can equivalently be expressed by the term 'censorship'.
Andrew Vella
Mar 15th 2009, 10:20
Although such laws seem way too harsh, and might be in for a revamp soon, I must state that I disagree with comments reported in this article...
I agree with Evarist Bartolo - that Christ had a sense of humour. However I believe that it doesn't justify anyone making fun of him or any other religious figure for that matter - from any other religion - not because religion is sensitive and people take it personal, but because people's faith must not be meddled with in that matter. I can understand that whoever wears/wore such costumes might not have had the intention of causing harm, but I promote the responsibility which we all have towards respecting one another within the freedoms of choosing what to wear.
Moreover, I agree with Chris Said's proposition of having a discussion. However, I cannot agree with him saying "Many people do not even know that wearing such costumes is illegal" for the simple fact that there exists a judicial practice which clearly states that "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to breaking it."