Censorship debated at university
An animated discussion on censorship was held at the University quadrangle this afternoon by the Front Against Censorship, where participants argued about various incidents of censorship throughout last year. Student Ingram Bondin from the Front...
An animated discussion on censorship was held at the University quadrangle this afternoon by the Front Against Censorship, where participants argued about various incidents of censorship throughout last year.
Student Ingram Bondin from the Front Against Censorship started by complaining about another incident verging on censorship, where famous books like Irvine Welsh’s Porno and a biography of Marquis de Sade were found to be in a restricted section in the University library, “under lock and key”.
He said that the Front had five proposals on the way the laws of the country needed to change, including the removal of a board that is allowed to censor films or plays and the revising of obscenity, pornography and blasphemy laws.
Journalist Raphael Vassallo said that laws criminalising blasphemy against the Catholic religion were ironic since Jesus Christ himself was persecuted for blasphemy at the time.
He argued that in general, laws restricting freedom of expression needed to be less vague and more up-to-date, in that they reflected the context of the time.
“According to the Press Act it is not allowed to reduce someone to ridicule, which means I can technically be taken to court for every satirical article I write,” he said.
Writer and philosopher Joe Friggieri said he was part of the debate not to share his opinions about censorship but to question the proposals of the Front Against Censorship in order for them to be revised for the better.
He wondered whether any form of play should be allowed to be produced, even if it glorified torture, child abuse or animal cruelty. He also questioned whether the Front was in favour of vilification of religion and whether this would apply to just the Catholic religion or others as well.
Labour MP Owen Bonnici, who had called on the government to set up an obscenities committee to come up with better definitions for the law, said it was necessary for everyone to agree that the State should not have the power to ban a play or a film for being shown. He added that those working in the creative industry should not be hampered by the fear of being thrown in prison.
He said government experts had said that the creative industry was essential to economic development, but this could not be achieved with laws that in principle empowered the government to restrict freedom of expression unjustifiably.
“Let us not let the details distract us from the principles,” he said, adding that while it was important to talk about exceptions and limits to freedom of expression, certain principles were basic and should be accepted by a European democracy.
He warned that there were people with a hidden agenda and an interest in restricting freedom of expression who were trying to confuse people by talking about exceptions rather than basic principles.
Lawyer Alex Sciberras stressed that the law should be transformed to follow the “publish and be damned” policy, by which artists and writers be held accountable for their actions, but not stopped from expressing themselves beforehand.
Alternattiva Demokratika spokesman Arnold Cassola said that there needed to be a distinction between what is said in reality and what is said as part of a creative piece. He said that while hate-speech was not allowed by law, one could not take action against a creative piece of work for containing someone who was racist.
Prof. Friggieri agreed, but questioned films and plays that glorified such sentiments. He added that freedom of expression had become more restricted in certain aspects but not necessarily in a bad way:
“Fifty years ago it was acceptable to ridicule a disabled person. But now it is not, and it should not be,” he said.
Parliamentary secretary for Culture Mario De Marco was invited to the debate but said he would not attend because the government was still drawing up its policy on the subject.
Dr Bonnici said the least he could have done was attend and listen to what was being said, but this attitude was symptomatic of a government that did not care about this issue.