There are people who from time to time believe that no one should expect them to bother about the laws of the country so much so that they believe that they should be immune from prosecution.

Immune bishops

Decades ago, the bishops in some countries enjoyed this privilege. Maltese bishops had this privilege. It was called the privilegium fori.

Ok, Ok. I know. Bishops were (still are) expected to obey the laws of the country and to set an example. They do; though with some very minor exceptions which surface from time to time.

The reasoning behind the privilege was that the position of the bishop in the community was such that he (sorry, no she) could be granted this treatment without any fear that the laws of the country would be broken with impunity. Times change, and this privilege was eventually abolished.

The grand old man of Maltese politics, Mr Mintoff, contributed immensely towards the abolition of this privilege and he should be commended for this.

What "the people" want

Berlusconi also believes that he should be immune from persecution ... at least while he is Prime Minister. This is a trifle different from the case of bishops. Not everyone believes that Berlusconi has law observance to his heart as much as most bishops have.

In fact, the Italian Prime Minister is the subject of a couple of law court cases and the centre of a bigger number of unsavoury stories, not to say scandals. One can argue that "the people" knew of the allegations and the accusations, but these notwithstanding, they elected him to be their prime minister.

Some argue that if "the people" spoke so loudly in his favour then he should be left in peace and quite so that he could do what "the people" elected him to do. Many, especially, on the left, tend to disagree with such arguments. Of the same opinion are the Italian courts.

Berlusconi has to answer in court independently of what "the people" did or want.

Let's complicate matters

Since nothing is ever straightforward in our fantastic post-modern world let me complicate matter a wee bit.

Let me return to one category which in yonder years was immune from prosecution, i.e. bishops.

If a bishop writes and distributes obscene (or worse still, pornographic) works to adults (worse still if minors are the recipients) everyone would say, I think, that he should be prosecuted. However, let us say that the bishop appoints himself to be an artist, should he still be prosecuted?

If the bishop describes his writings as fine literature communicated under the guise of the obscene or pornographic genre should he be prosecuted?

The bishop explains: "I have a noble purpose. My opus is a very clear social comment. Those who do not immediately see this are stupid. I want to show the sexual degradation, exploitation and humiliating perversions that young aliens from Mars are subjected to by the privileged elites of planet Earth."

Should he be prosecuted or praised for venturing this to illuminate humanity? I suspect that many would say that he should be persecuted not just prosecuted. Does he think that we are fools and cannot recognise rubbish when we read it?

No laws please, we are "artists"

Let us say that instead of a bishop masquerading as an artist there is a "real" artist i.e. one who says that he/she is an artist and who is anointed by the "I am so because I say" enlightened brigade. Will this make a difference?

It definitely will. If this is the case then rubbish becomes a precious commodity and rightly so in a culture bent on re-cycling. Obscenity and pornography are considered to be the stuff which mature adults consume for breakfast and lunch while the weaning of legal minors in the substance should be accelerated. Disposing such rubbish in a bin would rightly be considered to be an attack on "the people" freedom to be the beneficiaries or the donors of artistic expression. Those who dare criticise "artists" are leftovers from the Dark Ages..

Bishops - and rightly so - should not be given immunity from prosecution. Neither should politicians, or judges or ... whoever. Nevertheless, those who anoint themselves as artist should not be similarly held accountable for their actions. Woe to anyone who dares suggest the contrary actions. The laws of the country do not apply to such people.

This should be clear to everyone. "Artists" do not write shocking rubbish without any literary value. Only fine literature emanates from those who anoint themselves to be artists. No one should be offended if they place Crucifixes in jars filled with urine, don condoms on statues of the Virgin Mary, distribute adult literature to legal minors, etc etc etc. "Artists"

are not like those filthy b*** who horrify and manipulate the masses by showing Crucifixes in public places. The latter are the dregs of humanity which should be flushed out of human history.

All humans are equal except for self-appointed artists.

DISCLAIMER: Any applicability of the above to contemporary happenings is impurely intentional.