'Stitching' producers to appeal court decision on ban
The producers of the play Stitching have declared that they will appeal from a Court judgment which upheld a decision by the Stage and Film Classification Board to ban the production.
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. They have said they would, if necessary, even take the case before the European Court.
The civil court declared that blasphemy and vulgar language should not be tolerated in public, not even in plays.
The controversial play, written by Scottish playwright Anthony Neilson, has been performed in several countries.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon said 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."
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.
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...
28 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb (20minutes from Covent Garden, London UK
Jul 1st 2010, 13:20
@ M.Borg. So you are, and I quote your good self: '....and no I am not cut out from reality, I do know that many, mind you not everyone is, blaspheming but that does not make it right'. Really?! And M., we say 'cut OFF from reality. Cut out is like in 'a cardboard cut-out'. Said of a person, it means someone who is superficial, narrow-minded, blinkered, shallow - all the qualities, in fact, that characterise an animal, like a blinkered hmar tas-sienja, (your words, not mine). We must use our god-given brains in order to elevate ourselves from the animals. So, your words I'm afriad, are famous last words. Have a nice day wo/man! (but I suspect it's a man)
Joe Xuereb
Jun 30th 2010, 20:56
2) Following on from my last paradigm showing the asinine take of the argument, 'censoring - an banning - a piece merely on its text is enough, and where I chose as example the gruesome painting (maybe someone will let me know whose martyrdom it represents - I haven't been to Malta for near to twenty years) - may I choose another example, this one more apt than the first. I am thinking of that piece of magnificence, Strauss' 'Salome' ** - very biblical - where, in the London production at least, the singer/dancer (fat sopranos don't exist anymore these days) does the seven veils number ending in the buff. And there is murder, and gore, and incest, and psychosis - you name it, it's there. And apart from the nudity, the rest is in the script or implied to/by the intelligent but not fixatedly pious audience. The pious, the Joe Zammits of this world would ban this masterpiece. Over my rolling head!
@'STITCHING' producers, get a good real lawyer, and appeal. You should make it.
Joe Xuereb
Jun 30th 2010, 20:36
1) Thanks Joseph A. Borg. But no, I cannot forget. Malta is still my country after 50 years away. Does one have to self-exile in order to attain freedom of thought and sleep easy at night? Ha! I am sure there are free-thinkers in Malta but the minute they open their mouths they are shot down (and in Malta that's more than symbolic).|
Borg, thanks for reminding me of the disgusting spectacle that is screaming toddlers being made to witness the most horrendous gore, 'to catch them early'. I've expanded on that I don't know how many times in the past. Of course, as a self-exiled malteser I am not allowed to meddle.
continued
Joe Xuereb
Jun 30th 2010, 13:04
One cannot condemn a theatre production merely by looking at the text. Any more than one can condemn to burning the large painting at the Museum of Fine Arts in South Street. This depicts the martyrdom of some saint or other with his larger-than-life entrails trailing and bloody all over the place. Horrendously realistic (this was before Expressionism and Impressionism, the 'lazy' schools of art became all the rage). But one looks beyong the imagery. One appraises the symbolism of martyrdom, why people are killed for their beliefs (like Christ was, a martyr par excellence). And so on. A whole education in one large tableau on canvas. And that before admiring the mastery of the painter, a spiritual man if ever there was one. What the judges are saying is, give me a description of the painting, I'll be the judge of it, and, on the weight of the entrails alone, I say burn it. No judge, it is not so simple. We need to think laterally using our god-given brains. The days of seeing things in black and white, because it is easier and more convenient, are well and truly over.
Joseph A Borg
Jun 30th 2010, 14:15
Forget it Joe you're a 'relativist' talking to local fundies… For them, those who don't agree with their myopic worldview is heathen, goyim or dhimmi… we're second class citizens to their exalted family.
They will take impressionable children to see the Passion of the Christ whilst denying adults the choice to see a viewing of a play describing the relationship of a broken couple…
They forget that their old testament is full of invective aimed towards those who aren't yaheweh's chosen people. Then they feel comfortable with the lame excuse that Jesus is the son of a new god and has made everything good for those who believe his history… a history heavily edited to please the reigning caesar and his political agendas around 350ad.
How can you try to reason with these people? They will believe anything and can get whipped up into a frenzy in a few seconds, boosting madmen like McCarthy, Hitler, Pinochet, Franco etc…
Once they take your liberty to privately experience a play, they can take anything they want… that's a parting shot. Democracy is still being bootstrapped out of a miasma of tribal ignorance and prejudice reminiscent of cavemen past…
N. Buckle
Jun 30th 2010, 07:36
IF, and only if, blasphemy was the real reason to the banning of the play, how about banning football matches and village feasts.
C.Sciberras
Jun 29th 2010, 18:42
"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 EU, society's values have no political power, the values of the political system do. And the values of democracy are not those of a conservative roman catholic which the judge is describing, but of a free citizen who respects other citizens with his actions.
When the judge said that blasphemy or vulgar language are not to be tolerated in public, he was right since, for ex., children might be present and they should not hear vulgar language if their parents responsible for them don't want them to. However, a play that is clearly for adults and which you have to pay for,is not on the same level of vulnerability as an unwarned public! This is a play, not a manual on how to live your life and if a part of Maltese society want to enjoy it, they should be FREE to do so, since they are DEMOCRATS. If you don't like it, you simply don't go!
MBorg
Jun 29th 2010, 17:21
@ Franco Farrugia
Well Sir, I am always ready to return the compliment, for once you are right.
As things stand some of us are turning into aninals, and you are also right some are even worse than animals. We have a mind and a conscience to help us choose right from wrong, something that the rest of the animal world, seeing that you want to classify men as animals, does not have. That is what gives us values, No hypocrisy is involved , remove good values and turn into an animal.
Joseph A Borg
Jun 30th 2010, 09:04
"We have a mind and a conscience to help us choose right from wrong, something that the rest of the animal world, seeing that you want to classify men as animals, does not have"
These are baseless assertions that are not founded in fact but always purloined by the likes of Arnaud Amaury, Savonarola, Torquemada and others. I'm afraid our valued democracy is held hostage by a bunch of brainless loonies who think that by virtue of writing in a language shared by greats minds they share in that department.
You do not choose for me MBorg! If you believe your god gave you the freedom to exercise free will, why do you insist on taking it away from others?
What a bunch of hypocrites challenged in the brain department… your bible is full of vile invective aimed at the religious beliefs of others yet you have the cheek to invoke blasphemy laws!!!!
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 29th 2010, 17:20
I have absolutely nothing against individuals indulging in their pet kink in the privacy of their own abodes. However, they must not expect public spaces to be accessible to their perverted notions of what is artistic. Just imagine anyone trying to teach this kind of filth to vulnerable young people aged sixteen to eighteen. No wonder a learned professor complained about the death of the humanities. If this is what art has come to mean today (another example being the immersion of a Crucifix into a jar of urine), then that explains why i often feel like throwing up when i am forced to teach some sorry excuse for literature.
MBorg
Jun 29th 2010, 16:44
@ Franco Farrugia
You are right I have good values, believe me I am not he only one in Malta who has good values. And no I am not cut out from reality , I do know that many, mind you not everyone is, blaspheming but that does not make it right.
Don't you know that having values, as you put it, is what makes us different to animals?
Franco Farrugia
Jun 29th 2010, 16:53
@ MBorg: No, I didn't know that. Actually, sir, I would much rather live amongst animals than alongside a certain kind of human being: the hypocrite. Do you honestly think that we, human beings, are some superior species to the way animals live? We are infinitely worse than the rest of animals. We speak of values in our country and we swim in hypocrisy! That is the stark reality, and that is what many of us continue to deny. Once again, you have not answered my question: what is it to you if your adult neighbour goes to watch Stitchin'? Tell me, in God's name, how that affects you!
PS You should remember that homo sapiens is also an animal.
Joe Zammit
Jun 29th 2010, 16:29
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR APPEAL. READ THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE EMINENT JUDGE AND COME TO A REASONABLE CONCLUSION. ONLY ILLUSION CAN PUSH YOU TO APPEAL. TIME WILL TELL.
Alex Ellul
Jun 29th 2010, 16:04
We either have laws or we don't. The law has been upheld by the court. But more than this, we have here a most important and fundamental issue: Do we throw away what society has builtand believed in since we walked down the tree and out of the cave? These values came to us fom civilisations such as the Greek and Roman political systems that evolved into our present way of life, that way of life that can cure most diseases, take us to the moon, fly aound the world, heat our homes in winter and cool it in summer, have the nourishment that our body needs and then some more. Now, from the comfort of their warm seat and some tiny warped corner of their mind, The Illuminati, those who think they are so intelligent that they look at people who still uphold thousand-year old values as ignorant, backward, fundamentalist or worse, want toundo all this, and, snake-and-ladder game-like, pull us down back to square one, the cave or worse. A society will beakdown without a fundamental set of moral values. Our court has understood this correctly. The Illuminati have to accept this, the rule of law, at least.
Franco Farrugia
Jun 29th 2010, 16:21
I don't know how you came to your conclusion and I was too tired to read the long comment you give. But my conclusion is that no, once again, the Court has proved that the Law is an ass.
Alex Ellul
Jun 30th 2010, 00:04
The law, dear Franco, is always considered as an ass by the losing party. I ve kept my comment as short as possible, hoping you go to sleep early and take a good rest following the artful court decision.
K. Vella
Jun 29th 2010, 15:58
"The court refused to watch the play, so like the board it relied on the script to base its judgment."
So are pornographic films perfectly OK in the Court's eyes because their script must surely not be as graphic as the visuals and would probably raise no flags?
Mark A. Sammut
Jun 29th 2010, 16:28
That is why the test would have two steps:
First step: text.
Second step: interpretation.
Dr. Mark A. Sammut
Jun 29th 2010, 14:40
Are different ways of uttering blasphemies? Does the blasphemy's unlawful nature depend on the way it is uttered?
To my understanding, Judge Zammit McKeon was absolutely correct in insisting that the text should be the basis of the judgment.
The interpretation given by the director and the actors - whereas it is of utmost importance in the creative process - is to be divorced from the text.
In other words, a text might be acceptable but the interpretation would be susceptible to a ban; or both text and interpretation might be susceptible to a ban. It is more logical to start with the text. If the text passes the test, then the interpretation would have to be examined to see whether it (the interpretation) passes the test.
In this case, the text failed the test. It follows that there was no need to examine the interpretation, since no interpretation can expurgate a text of its unlawful parts which does not itself censor the text.
One has to conclude that the Court was very logical and, therefore, correct.
If one were to argue the contrary, one would not rate as AO an erotic version of a fairy tale for children.
MBorg
Jun 29th 2010, 14:16
Well done to the Civil Court for banning "Stitching ". It is about time that everybody realized that they just cannot do or say whatever they liked in the name of freedom of expression.
As Judge Zammit McKeon rightly said " the values of a country cannot be turned upside down simply in the name of freedom of expression. What is rubbish will remain rubbish under any name be it art or play.
Franco Farrugia
Jun 29th 2010, 16:19
What is it to you if your neighbour wants to go and watch such a play? How does it, in any way, disturb you? Or do you feel that you have to force neighbours and fellow adults into a way of living that you adhere to? And you speak about 'values', as the Magistrate did? Are you so cut off from reality as to not realise that everyone and his granny is blaspheming but hardly anyone is being brought to book? So, ehm ... don't you think that you are just one of so many Maltese people who prefer to continue swimming very deep in hypocrisy?
Joseph A Borg
Jun 29th 2010, 16:48
One man's food is another man's poison. MBorg, you can choose no to watch the play. Hardly anybody does anyway. But you're depriving other citizens who have equal rights to you in this country of their liberty to watch it.
I bet you would have relished living during the inquisition or leading some of the pogroms in recent European history…
Even Fr Joe Borg in his opinion seems to have changed tack.
"Let us take the ruckus and pointless diversion created by his position on porn in hotel rooms. I think that the porn is morally negative and that dependence of porn is a social and psychological minus. However, it does not follow that the state should ban or criminalise everything which is morally negative. If the state embarks on such route, despotism would be just round the corner."
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20100616/fr-joe-borg/to-porn-or-not-to-porn
If you recall, Fr Joe was one of the main voices against the play
Luca Mule Stagno
Jun 29th 2010, 14:06
Lovely, now Malta is going to have to be humiliated before the rest of Europe if they take it before the European courts. It's a shame that we live in a country where there is a dictatorship of the majority with regards to the arts. 'Public morality' is such a ridiculous way to make such judgments as nobody can really determine public morality so it is left to the subjectivity of those in power. The other problem is that 'public morality' in Malta could mean an acceptance of racism and extreme bigotry against homosexuals.
So, if hate speech against homosexuals and other races is tolerated, how can we have any sort of sanity in our nation?
J Farrugia
Jun 29th 2010, 13:04
hats off to such much researched decisions of our law courts. Yes I agree perfectly that blasphemy and vulgarity should never be tolerated. are we a civil society or a perverse society where we adore abortions, kill our elderly folk, and destroy whole families. We have to stand up to these barefaced monsters who want to degrade our society by such vulgarity. This is no art and they can go to the European courts as much as they like. We dont care about foreign courts. We are Maltese and others have to abide by our code of conduct. As long as in our nation there remains a flimsy piece of moral sense of honour and discipline. we will keep unifaun in our minds for future reference.
ray sacco
Jun 29th 2010, 13:42
@j.farrugia:
and who are you to talk in the name of all maltese citizens?
Franco Farrugia
Jun 29th 2010, 16:14
I don't think that Unifaun has anything to be afraid of by your threat, since I doubt very much whether you would be the type to patronise cultural events, anyway. Certainly not those that Unifaun would be likely to present.
Prof. P. Sant Cassia
Jun 29th 2010, 12:43
There is an interesting issue here which is perhaps academic but nevertheless critical to any ethical or aesthetic evaluation of a piece of theatre. The report states:
"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."
Performance Vs Text? Perhaps but I am not so sure. A bad enactment/performance can sink a (good) play; a good performance could just about carry a (mediocre) text- because one admires the acting and artistry. In any case, because a play relies so heavily on words and its architecture of characters and plots, it usually stands (or sinks) as a text, much like a musical score, and is conceived, transmitted, and worked on as a text -sometimes over millennia as with Classical Greek Theatre. Its interpretation/enactment, like music, always varies. So on balance, I would tend to agree on the formal point that one has to "judge" a text/play/score on its formal textual/musical qualities - quite apart from the censorship issues involved. The performance argument is slightly specious.
mark johnson
Jun 29th 2010, 12:14
I think the court should extend its gaze to films shown at the cinema and content viewable via the internet. It would be very easy for them to ban certain films and stop access to certain websites. What if this play were to be made into a film and shown at cinemas in malta. Would it also be banned?