Owen Bonnici MP (PL), Valletta
Replacing censorship with age classification
Austin Bencini failed to put forward a coherent reasoning on obscenity laws (January 13) and merged the debate about the young editor Mark Camilleri's ordeal with censorship, child pornography, sexual harassment, extreme pornography, erotic websites and the like.
His article was published only one day after Justice and Interior Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici told Parliament that my proposal to throw censorship in the arts out of the window would open the door to pornographic material which abuses of children, people with disability and other vulnerable persons.
Censorship by definition is a mechanism whereby a state-owned entity curbs and suppresses, partially or in toto, a communicative effort from being transmitted before that effort is actually transmitted. Therefore the Camilleri case has nothing to do with censorship since he at no time was held from publishing and distributing his newspaper, but with another issue (that of the application of anti-obscenity laws).
In our country, censorship is obtained under the so-called Cinema and Stage Regulations whereby, as the Stitching promoters know well enough, a government authority has the obscene power to censor a film or play in part or in whole.
As MPs from both sides of the House, the President of the Chamber of Advocates and a long list of authors and artists have claimed, the concept of censorship is anathema to a healthy democracy based on freedom of speech, belief in the arts and the natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.
Really and truly, censorship reflects the state's lack of confidence in society.
A 2002 Council of Europe report compiled by a group of experts led by Anthony Everitt stated in no uncertain terms that "stage censorship, being a control over the freedom of expression, is inconsistent with the principles of the Council of Europe and the European Union and should be abolished. (B 6.17)"
Since I believe in a true, healthy democracy I am calling for the total abolishment of censorship from our laws obtaining under the Cinema and Stage Regulations and the introduction, instead, of an age rating mechanism similar to that found in cinemas and some TV programmes.
Should the present-day conservative government keep on dragging its feet on this issue, Labour will propose its own fully-fledged private members Bill by the end of next May to throw censorship out of the window completely and replace it with an age-classification mechanism.
Even without the archaic institute of censorship, society would still be protected from grave abuses involving child pornography, extreme pornography and serious harassment to vulnerable sectors of society through anti-obscenity laws.
However, the application (or non-application) of anti-obscenity laws should always be made in a way in which to favour the liberty of freedom of expression and artistic freedom.
To take the Camilleri case, there is absolutely no way where a sensible and progressive democracy can ever accept that a young University student be accused of a crime which carries the maximum penalty of six months imprisonment just because he happened to publish an article or short story in a University newspaper on an anti-hero who attracts disgust on his views about women, be it with or without any literary value!
We need both a modernisation and revamp of article 208 of the Criminal Code and the anti-obscenity laws and, most importantly, a revamp in the conservative mentality of this government and all the other authorities which were involved in this tragi-comedy of errors.
In discussing what is obscene, we should keep in mind that the European Court of Human Rights has stated that the values of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society demand a freedom of expression not only of ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb.
Labour will do everything that is in its power to put some sense and instil in Malta a breath of fresh air in line with the contemporary reasoning in Europe.
In saying this, Labour is not putting undue pressures on the serenity and the independence which the courts must enjoy at all times as it has been suggested, but is putting pen to paper what it believes in, what it stands for, and where it wants the Maltese society to go.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
J. Schembri
Jan 16th 2010, 12:11
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Marylu Alosia d'Agostino
Jan 15th 2010, 20:48
@John Schembri Read Article 10. 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 the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society””. And by the way, please understand English before posting too. Article 19 only reinforces Article 10.
J. Schembri
Jan 15th 2010, 19:41
@ Marylu: "Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. " Please check your facts. I don't have a right to insult you.
Marylu Alosia d'Agostino
Jan 15th 2010, 19:22
@ John Schembri. Please get your head out of the sand or stop posting. Are we stating that one has a right to write "not only of ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb."? Do you realise that this is the international charter for Human Rights on Freedom of Expression? Do you realise that the charter goes on to say that only this way can true democracy be enjoyed? Are you suggesting now that we should do away with the international charter for Human Rights? Do you realise how oppressive your arguments are?
J. Schembri
Jan 15th 2010, 17:56
@ Kenneth Cassar: I'm all out for rating works of art. @Jon Vercellono: my head is not in the sand, it does not follow that if all our children swear and smoke we should APPROVE of their misbehavior. If an adult wants to read or watch what he considers art which I consider trash let him or her enjoy this ‘art’. But shouldn't a line be drawn? Where should the limit be? Are we stating that one has a right to write "not only of ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb."? I hope that this is not also what Ms Cristina wanted to say. In my opinion no one has a right to offend or hurt other people's feelings. For example: who will stop/censor someone writing against gay persons? What will anyone from glorifying Hitler's hatred to handicapped persons , coloured people, jews and gypsies?
Jon Vercellono
Jan 15th 2010, 16:02
@John Schembri - Walk by any Boy's or Girl's School when school is out or starting and listen to the conversations they're having (starting Grade 5) - and reread the story about the girl's school in Gozo. I think our ears and morals need protection from them - where are the police at at those times? If this is also the case, children must be banned from Football matches as well to protect them from the "colourful" language. Get your head out of the sand!
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 15th 2010, 15:43
@ John Schembri:
"News agents sell cigarettes too, like cigarettes adult magazines are meant to be sold/distributed for the consumption of adults. In my opinion an editor/publisher should warn his readers about the contents of his newspaper, a caption "ADULT MATERIAL 18" would suffice".
True. So we are in complete agreement on classification and strict adherence to it. No need for censorship.
"If one is mature enough to read and publish a cheap porn article one should be man enough to face the consequences of his deeds".
I don't see it as a cheap porn article. But then again, it's a matter of perception. Some people would see some of the art in the Vatican as pornographic. In any case, pornography is not the issue here. Playboy is legal.
"The police are duty bound to see to it that the laws of the country are observed, it does not fall under their competence to see whether laws are outdated or not".
Exactly. The competence of who decides which laws are outdated falls on members of parliament. Hence Owen Bonnici and Dolores Cristina's statement that censorship law needs (at the very least) to be changed, if not abolished.
J. Schembri
Jan 15th 2010, 14:52
News agents sell cigarettes too, like cigarettes adult magazines are meant to be sold/distributed for the consumption of adults.
In my opinion an editor/publisher should warn his readers about the contents of his newspaper, a caption "ADULT MATERIAL 18" would suffice. Editors have responsibilities, even if they are 'young students’.
If one is mature enough to read and publish a cheap porn article one should be man enough to face the consequences of his deeds,
Laws are there to be observed even though in our opinion they may be outdated. The police are duty bound to see to it that the laws of the country are observed, it does not fall under their competence to see whether laws are outdated or not.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 15th 2010, 13:53
@ John Schembri:
"Our University is also frequented by Juniour College students who are under age".
So are our newsagents with all their adult magazines. This is not what this case is about. Its about obscenity laws and censorship.
"If there will be no censorship laws, can one write in favour of Nazism, against Jews or insult other people’s religious beliefs?".
You'll find some of those books at local bookstores.
"It is good to know what PL stands for".
If you do the research, you will find that Minister Dolores Cristina also wants to abolish censorship and replace it with classification.
Marylu Alosia d'Agostino
Jan 15th 2010, 11:37
At last, a politician speaking words of wisdom on the issue . . . Well done, Dr Owen Bonnici . . . As regards to Carm Mifsud Bonnici's words, they could hardly have been more crass. Dr Gonzi should sack him now before he becomes yet another embarassment for the party.
J. Schembri
Jan 15th 2010, 11:13
"there is absolutely no way where a sensible and progressive democracy can ever accept that a young University student be accused of a crime which carries the maximum penalty of six months imprisonment just because he happened to publish an article or short story in a University newspaper " .
Owen Bonnici forgot the part which people like me are objecting to: the distribution of material fit only for mature adults. Please note that Realta is left at student's house free for everyone to take. Our University is also frequented by Juniour College students who are under age.
May I pose a hypothetical question: what would a court judgment be if a father of a sixteen year old Juniour College student is found reading Vella Gera's piece together with his daughter by the separated wife -who wants the girl's custody?
If there will be no censorship laws, can one write in favour of Nazism, against Jews or insult other people’s religious beliefs?
It is good to know what PL stands for.