Christian Peregin
Court rules ban on play was justified
Producers to appeal judgment
Blasphemy and vulgar language should not be tolerated in public, not even in plays, according to a court judgment that upholds the Classification Board's decision to ban the play Stitching.
The controversial play, written by Scottish playwright Anthony Neilson and performed in various countries, was banned in Malta in January last year, prompting a civil court case instituted by the producer that came to an end yesterday.
The ban had caused an uproar, sparking months of discussion. The play's producers, Unifaun, had claimed their freedom of expression was being denied but the court yesterday disagreed.
In an 82-page judgment, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon said "without hesitation" that the board had acted correctly and pointed out that the values of a country could not be turned upside down simply in the name of freedom of expression.
He said it was unacceptable in a "democratic society founded on the rule of law" for any person, no matter what they did, to be allowed to swear in public - even in a theatre as part of a script.
"According to our law, the very fact that a person swears in public, regardless of the reason, is a contravention... So if the court allows this in a democratic society, it would be discriminating (against those who are punished for swearing in public)."
The court "disagreed" with the producers of the play that the author was justified in adopting certain language to emphasise the torment of the main characters in the play.
He said the producers had every right, in theory, to ask who should interfere with the right of the author to express his views, but there were other "social" considerations that "usurped all other considerations".
He cited case law of three incidents (from 1976, 1994 and 1996) where the European Court found that individual countries had a right and duty to protect their own society's values.
With "all due respect" to the playwright and the other countries that allowed Stitching to be produced, the judge said he could not reconcile the play's plot with the method adopted.
He said there was nothing unreasonable in the board's actions to observe the country's laws and view the play as "an offence to the whole culture of the country".
"No matter how tumultuous the relationship of the couple was, extensive use of vulgar, obscene and blasphemous language that exalts perversion, vilifies the right to life... makes fun of the suffering of women in the Holocaust, and reduces women to a simple object of sexual satisfaction... cannot be used."
Meanwhile, the producers of the play have said they disagreed with the judgment and would be preparing to file an appeal. They had already stated that if they exhausted all local court proceedings they would take the issue to the European Court of Human Rights. Classification board chairman Theresa Friggieri, who had come under fire for her decision last year, preferred not to comment.
The two-actor play is about a couple struggling to deal with the loss of their child, so much so that they engage in perverse acts and thoughts to escape reality.
The court refused to watch the play, so like the board it relied on the script to base its judgment. The producers had argued the play must be watched to be understood, adding its message was a positive one.
The court also found that the producers were not denied a right to a fair trial.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
29 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 13:00
'Stitches' is trash indeed! There is absolutely no art in it!
The judge and the censorship board were completely right in their decisions. It's useless to appeal. Time will tell. When you appeal you must have serious grounds for appeal. In this case there is no ground for appeal except, from what I gathered, only a flawed reason.
The decision of the appeal will not be taken on what is being done abroad, but in the light of our Criminal Law.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 30th 2010, 12:26
3) Joe Zammit, are you telling us that the last time you went to a performance of Madama Butterfly you came out of the theatre feeling disgust at the suicide scene and telling all and sundry that Cio-Cio-San went straight to hell because she died in a state of mortal sin. I dare you to say that this is what you said/thought. Go on Joe, make us titter.
J. Darmanin
Jun 30th 2010, 09:39
I'm not sure if I i should laugh or cry?...
Why should anyone under the sun, have the ability to stop me from attending this play... or any other play like this, if I WANT to be there! - it's not like I'm forced to watch it or publicly televised or something - it will be in a closed theatre and you actually have to pay to enter!! Please note it's now 2010!!!
Edward Caruana Galizia
Jun 30th 2010, 09:15
"Blasphemy and vulgar language should not be tolerated in public"
These people have left their house at least once in their lives right?
Joe Xuereb
Jun 29th 2010, 23:28
2) According to Joe Zammit, the church won't/can't die. These works of art won't either because they deal with human emotions that are here to stay, like anything god-given - according to Zammit, these and millions of other creations should be torched. Hence his recurring nightmares and ever stringent self-censorship.
I get the feeling - really?! - that many in Malta want to retain a society whiter than white (which it's never been). They don't have to go to a theatre, read books/magazines, access the internet - all stuff that push out the boundaries of their purist fantasies, so necessary for personal growth. And does Malta have advertising showing scantily dressed men and women? The 'in-your-face' hoardings that cannot be ignored. What are they going to do about hoardings, beach-wear, street-wear? I would advise them to leave adverts on hoardings well alone if they're not to be laughed under the billboards.
Why can't we use a little calm reasoning? It doesn't require super-human intelligence. God-given intellect needs usage but imposed Maltese values dictate that thinking below the flimsiest surface is anathema. Knowledge is emporering so it's a no-no. Keep them ignorant. Keep them chained.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 29th 2010, 23:03
1) A play is praised for the insights it provides, the production, the acting. The opera Madama Butterfly is appraised by the critic to high heaven. S/he is not endorsing the validity of suicide and its beauty. But s/he - and the public who flock to see it - are impressed by the way it is presented. The tear-jerkinging. The re-telling of the story to family, friends, neighbours and colleagues. All humanity is there. It is good to be moved by 'One Fine Day' and weep. Is this opera to be relegated to oblivion because one Joe Zammit cannot differentiate between fiction that humanises one and crude reality. Simailar to the 'pornographic University rag saga which has a strong Christian morality streak running right through it. It is a sublime narrative in the first person, therefore in verismo style, which means there's no other language to use but that which was used. Talking of verismo, Mascagni's opera Cavalleria Rusticana has pregnancies out of wedlock, infidelity, murder - all human life is there. Never mind Pagliacci.
continued
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 29th 2010, 21:36
@ Alan Montanaro
From your reply you seem to imply that FREEDOM knows no bounds or limits. Now you know that cannot be true. For the sake of argument, even within the privacy of my own home, i cannot indulge in any kind of perversion which goes against certain laws of the land. I do not know whether you are familiar with the case, of some years ago, where a German killed and ate the liver of his CONSENTING adult friend. Should that kind of depravity fall within your definition of freedom?
alan Montanaro
Jun 29th 2010, 19:07
@ Joe Zammit - you failed to answer my question: Did you watch the play? And if so, why? More importantly, why are you deciding for me that I can't see it?
@ Tony Bartolo, Andrew Farrugia and M Borg - Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Choice has nothing to do with what is blasphemy and what is not. It has everything to do with "FREEDOM".
People aren't forced to part with their money to watch a play. They go because they CHOOSE to. Its not your cup of tea, so don't go and watch it. I probably wouldn't have either. But thats my choice to make. Not yours. not anybody's.
Just don't be so arrogant as to decide for me. I wouldn't DREAM of deciding for you.
Tony Bartolo
Jun 29th 2010, 18:16
Congratulations to the Judge on his judgment. This play is simply blasphemy and indecent. The author of such a play is simply incapable of producing a decent play and has to resort to blasphemy.
Emelia Caruana
Jun 29th 2010, 16:03
What is the BOARD going on about all you hear in MALTA from kids as young as 12 is BLASPHEMY in the streets on the buses every second word is DAM GOD in maltese are the board and judge deaf .A PLAY is in a theatre A creative work of art people can chose to go and see it or not go .....people are swearing in public daily mr JUDGE what about the FILMS and all the killing violence swearing sex . all you hear in malta is swearing ....your law is outdated time for new laws like FREEDOM OF ARTISTIC PERFORMANCE NOW
MBorg
Jun 29th 2010, 16:30
Now this is something new !
Do we need blasphemy and swearing for a play to have artistic value ? Do we need to have filth thrown at us in the name of " freedom of artistic performance ?" Is this the way art is judged nowadays?
Ramon Casha
Jun 29th 2010, 18:12
@MBorg: The way art is judged nowadays is by watching it and coming to your own conclusions.
MBorg
Jun 29th 2010, 18:39
@ Ramon Casha
You are wrong there. Art is judged by its beauty, be it visual or written. Why go to watch something that you know will disgust you and degrade you as a human being ? Not everything that is written , not even if you use the overused words " freedom of expression " can be classified as art.
Fabien Sant Fournier
Jun 30th 2010, 00:29
Mborg, art should not be judged solely by its aesthetic value, but for its expressive nature. Clearly you know nothing about art!!!
Ramon Casha
Jun 30th 2010, 07:44
@MBorg: How can you judge what is beautiful if you're not allowed to watch and judge it first?
Personally, I agree with the idea of classification, in which a work is classified according to content that might offend some. That way, each individual can decide whether they want to watch it or not. It is arrogant to assume that whatever disgusts and/or degrades you would have the same effect on everyone else.
alan montanaro
Jun 29th 2010, 15:18
The hypocrisy is mind-numbing. What a pity that the artist's and actors' freedom of expression is being stamped out, as well as me own freedom of choice to watch what i want. My father, a pioneer of freedom of expression in Malta must be turning in his grave.
By all means, give the play an adult rating, alert people that this may offend, slap warnings on it - but don't forbid me to make an calculated and adult choice.
To Joe Zammit I ask: what qualifies you to judge the play as trash? Did you watch it? If you did, then who the hell are you to decided that I can't?
To Justice Zammit McKeon, this is yet another serious step backward for the arts in Malta. Your refusal to watch a rehearsal, in good faith, so that you may see for yourself the play in context was a bad call which likely blinkered your judgement.
I hope the producers take this to the highest possible authority, and the antiquated censorship board dissolved once and for all.
In the meantime, I expect to see our police stations crawling with arrests for blasphemy during any religious festa.
MBorg
Jun 29th 2010, 15:48
How very right when you write that your " father a pioneer of freedom of expression in Malta must be turning in his grave. "
Nothing in his wildest dreams would have prepared him for the filth and rubbish we get today under the guise of freedom of expression.
Joe Zammit
Jun 29th 2010, 16:35
Alan, praising immorality is NOT art. Art is one thing, praising immorality is another. 'Stitching' is just trash. We have our criminal law and this law MUST apply in all cases, also inrepresentations. No one is going to hide behind the text of a play! The censor will uncover his or her mask!
MBorg
Jun 29th 2010, 14:33
Well done to the Civil Court for banning " Stitching" It is about time that everybody realized that they annot say or do whatever they liked in the name of freedom of sxpression.
As Judge Zammit McKeon rightly said " The values of a country cannot be turned upside down simply in the name of freedom of expression " He also added that " there was nothing unreasonable in the board's actions to observe the country's laws and to view the play as an offence to the whole culture of the country ."
What is rubbish will remain rubbish under any name, be it art ,play or text.
@ William P Flynn
As always you have to bring the church and priests into the picture. I wonder how you did not hint that maybe the Scottish playwright was once a priest.!!
William P Flynn
Jun 29th 2010, 23:45
M.Borg
Haven't you been reading the papers about the exploits of child raping priests all over the world? And what about the murderous Franciscan monks running concentration camps in Croatia during WWII?
If only priests had concentrated merely on writing or watching controversial plays rather than rape children the world would be a better place.
Censorship is a smokescreen.
Joe Zammit
Jun 29th 2010, 13:53
The judge deserves all praise for having gone in depth in his reasoning on the vulgarity, rudeness, insipidness and illogicity of the play 'Stitching'. The play did not succeed to stitch in time, and so it missed nine.
Joe Zammit
Jun 29th 2010, 13:52
It's one thing to mention something immoral and it's another to praise immorality. The banality of the play deserves the ban. Plays should raise the morality of spectators not debase it. 'Stitching' is literally trash! The censorship board and judge deserve all praise.
Ramon Casha
Jun 29th 2010, 13:35
No, the ban was not justified. It was merely legal.
"...language that exalts perversion, vilifies the right to life... makes fun of the suffering of women in the Holocaust, and reduces women to a simple object of sexual satisfaction... cannot be used"
Ok, then ban the Bible. It's full of rape, violence, murder, extreme cruelty, instructions to commit genocide on certain races/tribes, and worse. Women are bought and sold like livestock - the Bible even recommending a fair price for one. Of course if she's found not to be a virgin she must be killed. Children are killed for misbehaving - by God's command. Is THAT what the values of the country should be based on?
William P Flynn
Jun 29th 2010, 12:15
Who’s to say that Maltese don't blaspheme to get back at the church authorities for centuries of stringent control, unpunished priest paedophilia, rape and double standards which we all know always existed and exist today?
David Wain
Jun 29th 2010, 11:18
What a sad, sad country we live in! Does our cultural inquisition now intend banning D.H.Lawrence and De Sade? Going by the court's judgment, if Lady Chatterley's Lover and Justine are not banned, wouldn't that be discrimination against the producers of stitching?
The court describes stitching as going against the culture or values of Malta. I am Maltese, live in Malta.... this is not my culture!!
A. Slater
Jun 29th 2010, 11:12
Why is Stitching banned when the excellent 'Blasted' by Sarah Kane allowed at St Jame's? Blasted features rape, cannibalism, explicit sex, torture, racism and prostitution.
Maybe it's just the blaspheme that has irked Theresa Friggieri?
Ian Fenech
Jun 29th 2010, 10:01
"According to our law, the very fact that a person swears in public, regardless of the reason, is a contravention... So if the court allows this in a democratic society, it would be discriminating (against those who are punished for swearing in public)."
If that was really the case , then the court could have more than half of Malta charged, since swearing is a national hobby of the Maltese. And to be honest I still have to see somebody charged for swearing in public..............
I really can't belive this sudden outpour of moral police in this country. Seems everybody is trying to protect the values of others. People tend to forget that most of the swearing goes on the the religious feasts...................The same church that has abused it powers in the country for years and now they still want to control us.
Anyway last time I checked this was a free country. As long as there are notices about the strenght of the language of the the play then people ( of course adults) have a choice to go and see the play or not. I don't need some moral police to make the choice for me.
Franco Farrugia
Jun 29th 2010, 09:56
So, let's uphold our 'values' and ask the Police to arrest every single person in band-clubs, political clubs, and every other club on the Maltese islands - because you hear nothing but swearing and blaspheming! But it's very easy to come down hard on some Stitchin' play! But we are really reaching the pits of hypocrisy and sheer double-facedness in our insular society. Whatever the play is about, I have no right from prohibiting my adult neighbour from watching it! And that's about it!