Christian Peregin
Court ruling under fire
The court ruling that justified a ban on the play Stitching because of its vulgarity has come under fire from many in the theatre community, who say the work was not viewed in its proper light - as art.
The judgment, however, was seen by others as a reflection of the public's desire for some form of limit and as inevitable considering the law as it now stands.
On Monday, the Civil Court ruled in favour of the ban because it said the play was an affront to human dignity and the classification board had been reasonable to view it as "an offence to the whole culture of the country".
Since swearing was unacceptable in public and against the law, the judge said blasphemy and vulgar language could not be tolerated in plays, otherwise it would be discriminating against those who were punished for swearing in public.
The ruling, which is going to be appealed by the producers, stops the theatre company, Unifaun, from staging the controversial script by Scottish author Anthony Neilson.
The play, about a couple in a crisis coming to terms with loss, should have been staged in January 2009 but the Film and Stage Classification Board banned it because it felt the "envelope has been pushed beyond the limits of public decency".
Reacting to the judgment, Former Prime Minister Alfred Sant, a playwright himself, said he had not read the script but in principle disagreed with the judgment.
He said there was consensus in the modern world that some things should be censored, especially hate speech, but there was a fine line between propaganda and art. "It does not mean you cannot have an anti-Semitic character in a play."
He said he was "unimpressed" by the judge's argument that swearing in a theatre was equal to swearing in public.
"Does that mean we should stop all the American films coming to Malta? Whether you agree or not with that form of expression, it is part of the modern way of projecting reality," he said.
Theatre director Albert Marshall expressed shock that the judgment did not make the "very fundamental" distinction between reality and art.
"It's one thing to swear in public and be penalised justly. It's another to do it in an artistic context," he said, pointing out that nudity was not accepted in public but could not simply be made illegal in an artistic context.
A large number of actors, directors and theatregoers yesterday uploaded black squares on their Facebook profile display pictures in solidarity with the producers of Stitching.
On the other hand, theatre critic Paul Xuereb felt the judge really wanted to ensure the floodgates were not opened to a completely unrestrained depiction of immoral behaviour.
"I am not keen on censorship at all but I would be happier if the companies in Malta were themselves to exercise restraint. Some people seem too keen on shocking audiences. I think we need to be shocked from time to time, but a number of people are afraid this will lead to more changes in Maltese society."
He pointed out that for practical reasons the law only enabled the classification board to view the script rather than the play, which was why the court chose to do the same and refused to watch it.
He said he had nothing against "vulgarity" in plays, which was an aesthetic thing that could get tiring but did not bother him. "What disturbs many people is an excessive use of explicit sexual action on stage, which is very often the result of an inability to say something subtly. But in-your-face theatre is very fashionable nowadays."
Dr Xuereb felt the ruling was a reflection of the public's desire to have some form of limit.
The chairman for the Malta Council for Culture and the Arts, Adrian Mamo, said the outcome of the case was inevitable "because that's the way the law is".
"What really needs to be done is to amend the law. Hopefully, this is being tackled."
He disagreed with banning art but said certain kinds of expressions had to be restricted to particular contexts. Subversive theatre was not allowed on all stages around the world.
"Malta is still very far from other countries. If you go to London you can go watch Hair, a very popular musical, where everybody is nude. I don't think it would be staged here."
Alex Pace, of KRS film distributors, said this was a difficult issue because many films were packed with swear words.
"If you start banning swearing, you can ban everything. What about killing? We see it constantly on TV, films and plays. You can't just ban something because it is unacceptable in a real, public setting," he said, adding that in a cinema or theatre there were ratings to protect audiences.
Meanwhile, the Front Against Censorship issued a statement saying the ruling would trigger a new wave of censorship of the arts and fuel the intolerance already present in society.
The Front was "shocked" by the decision that the ban did not amount to an infringement of the right of freedom of speech.
"The Front is extremely doubtful how a play could have the potential to 'turn the values of society upside down'. It also doubts whether a society which censors the wilful viewing of art by adults deserves to be called civilised," it said, quoting passages of the 82-page judgment.
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...
58 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Xuereb
Jul 2nd 2010, 20:31
@ GiovDeMartino (20hrs.23mins.ago). Do you miss the Citylights in St. John's Street ? I do. It was an education @ 50cents a throw. Many a pleasant wet Sunday afternoon was spent there with my friend Charlotte. Pornography has its uses. It allows young men to let off their god-given steam, harming no one. Therefore, any bright spark who says that porno encourages rape, - maybe? The relatively low numbers of rapes against the hundreds who go the The Citylights shows that porno has benefits as I stated above. But then I'm broad-minded so waddya expect?!
Andrew Farrugia
Jul 2nd 2010, 14:19
@ David Masters;
Stop trying to be funny; your agenda may fool some, others are very quick on the uptake.
David Masters
Jul 2nd 2010, 17:58
@mr caruana and mr farrugia thank you for commenting on my post, which, I might add, was neither intentend to be funny nor guising any agenda whatsoever. I was merely trying to point out that censorship is extremely dangerous in so far as who gets to decide what should be censored and what not. the passage quoted is not pretty, but written by men in and of their time, thus reflecting the mentality of that era; so, Biblical Hermeneutics point accepted, I could just have easily posited a line or two from other works of universally admired literature, film, art etc, to which many would still take offence, regardless of the fact that they stand tall on education syllabae at both secondary and tertiary levels. Huxley, Lawrence, Kubrik, Blake Galileo etc were all banned at some point or other by the authorities of the day) Whose authority should be respected is my only point, which standards and what is the yardstick being used? It was mr zammit who conveniently brought religion and morals into this particular equation and it was to his comment that I made my post...interesting that you should decide that he cannot answer for himself.
charles caruana
Jul 2nd 2010, 14:06
@ david masters
Mr Masters, with admirable and evangelical humility, you described yourself as a keen bible student, and as such I’ m sure you’re familiar with, and probably have total mastery (pardon the pun) of, the vast literature on Biblical Hermeneutics. So I am quite sure you are aware of one elementary hermeneutical principle, namely that not every word in the OT and NT is divinely inspired and that that there is a certain human margin that went into its composition. Had you not been a keen bible student, quoting chapter and verse, your failure to understand Samuel 151:3, might lead some to foolishly confuse you with a bible-belt televangelizer.
And ah yes, Christ actually invited us not just to understand and walk with our enemies, as you wisely pointed out, but to actually love them. He also warned us about their hypocrisy, false humility and hidden malice, which crucified Him. Not that I have anything to teach a keen bible student like you, of course! Please be assured that in this case, offence has been neither taken nor given.
MBorg
Jul 1st 2010, 17:02
Why all this fuss ? The court was right to ban this play. It is of no importance that people have watched it in other countries, this is Malta and we object.
As for Adrian Mamo who put England up on a pedestal a very similar situation took place there.last Wednesday. Mind you, not in backword Catholic Malta ,but in modern, secular up to the minute England
A campaign for Diesel that won the top award at the Cannes advertising festival has been banned by the UK ad. watchdog after objections from the public, for being offensive, and encouraging antisocial behaviour. Poster are not being allowed of this ad. in public. Seems familier ? An award in Cannes and a no,no in England. Freedom of expression is being stretched too much.
Julian Borg
Jul 1st 2010, 18:52
Incidentally, the ad was banned from being displayed on posters, not magazines.
MBorg
Jul 1st 2010, 21:00
@ Julian Borg
If you took some time to read what I wrote you would have seen that I wrote " Posters are not being allowed of this ad, in public. They are only being used in certain magazines, not in all, but in some which normaly carry distasteful pictures , the Uk ad watchdog said people "who buy these magazines are used to these pictures."
Julian Borg
Jul 2nd 2010, 14:02
@MBorg
Erm...I did take time to read your post, but nowhere did you mention that the ad WAS allowed to run on magazines. It was banned from posters with the justification that it might be unsuitable for children (and possibly adults with a child's brain). A poster is usually displayed outdoors for indiscriminate viewing by passers-by. A magazine, on the other hand, is read by adults who'd be consenting to viewing its content by virtue of having paid for it. Now, honestly; what's more analogous to a play rated 18 and performed in an indoor theater: a poster or a magazine?
Joe Zammit
Jul 1st 2010, 11:55
Doing evil is abuse of freedom; it is exactly breaching that freedom and so it is no freedom at all. God has created us free to please him freely, to love him by doing his loving will out of our free will. So whoever does evil, including Adam and Eve, is abusing of his or her freedom.
Our Moral Law and our Criminal Law sanction abuse of freedom by punishment either here on earth alone, or here on earth and in the next as well.
The trash play 'Stitching' breaches our Moral Law and our Criminal Law. The Film and Stage Classification Board and the distinguished judge have come to a sound and mature decision: ban that trash!
There is absolutely no ground at law for appeal. The appeal will be just frivolous and vexatious. The sentence banning the trash play shall be confirmed.
David Masters
Jul 2nd 2010, 12:24
though a keen bible student, hereunder's one of many i've never understood nor had properly explained to me. TAKEN IN CONTEXT its actually and explicitly advocating genocide as God's instruction, yet it can hardly be censored, can it now?!!. yet following the logic moral and criminal codes you speak about, do you think it should be edited accordingly? dangerous territory. i'm glad its not me who has to make these decisions, BUT could/would anyone deny me my right to read the OT as it was written?
Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses. (1 Samuel 15:3)
i also know of another passage that, metaphorically, tells me to walk a few miles with my enemy....perhaps, if nothing else, to understand him better.....and if he babbles, im not forced to listen, i can just turn on my headphones :). offfence is taken not given.
Nanette Brimmer
Jul 1st 2010, 10:32
@Joe Zammit "God has created us free, but free to do good not evil"??? What utter nonsense! What kind of reasoning is that? Or rather, what kind of freedom? To quote God, He gave Adam and Eve all the freedom that existed at the time of the creation - He just asked them not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Did they choose to do the right thing?? Hah - and look where that choice led us!!
Nobody is forcing anybody to watch plays that contain adult language and material that might be offensive to some but not others. By using classification vs censorship, the public will be well-informed and can then make a conscious decision of whether to watch a play or not. If you think it will offend your morals, you simply don't watch it! But you can't insist others who think differently shouldn't watch it either! The key lies in the public being well-informed and being at ease with their own conscience. And, of course, excercising their God-given free will - which comes with no conditions whatsoever!
Joe Zammit
Jul 1st 2010, 12:01
Nanette, you are completely wrong. The theatre is a public place where morality and the criminal law have a place by right. No one is going to argue just watch it if you want. What harms society should be watched by no one. All our Criminal Law is censorship and it will remain with us, whether we like it or not. It is there for our own good. Favouring 'Stitching' = favouring trash!
S. Calleja
Jul 2nd 2010, 09:13
"All our Criminal Law is censorship"... here we go again!
Definition of censorship ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship ): out of the window;
Rules of logic and simple, basic set theory (censorship law are a subset of criminal laws): out of the window;
Please find me a wall so I can bang my head against it.
Joe Zammit
Jul 1st 2010, 10:04
Swearing should always be prohibited, also in theatres. Theatres are public places where both morality and our criminal law have a great say.
It's illogical to say that in films we watch murders. Murders in films are fictitious. A fictitious murder is no murder at all. Swearing is always immoral and against our law. It is never fictitious and so it should always be prohibited.
Besides, even if swearing finds a place in films, it does not follow (non sequitur) that it should have a place in plays as well. Two evils do not make a good.
'Stitching' is just trash first of all. It's absolutely no work of art. Both the judge and the Film and Stage Classification Board were right in their sound and mature decisions.
There is no reason for appeal. The banal grounds for appeal the producers have given are just vexatious and frivolous.
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 30th 2010, 21:34
Temper, temper! Ah, rage does blind the brain. Right, lesson one: a cursory glance at any English dictionary will give you a clear definition of the word "gremlins". More spoon-feeding? Nah, may not be necessary. As far as crash courses and manners (one may also add arrogance) are concerned, i suggest we should let others provide a more reliable objective judgement.
Karl Consiglio
Jun 30th 2010, 21:28
@Joe Zammit,
Can you please make up your mind which law you're following, one moment its that of Christ, the next its the law of man, unless you are like the pharisees, you ought to learn that the two don't go hand in hand.
Joe Zammit
Jul 2nd 2010, 02:46
Karl, we are obliged to follow both laws. A good Catholic obeys the laws of the country as well to the extent that these do not infringe on Moral Law. Christ obeyed civil laws as well in so far as these were in line with his infallible teaching.
c.t. busuttil
Jun 30th 2010, 20:45
This ruling is a challenge to our drama companies to express art in a way which is acceptable to Maltese Law. Let them rise to the occasion. In my opinion, being overly vulgar on stage is taking the easy way out any way.
MBorg
Jun 30th 2010, 22:16
How very right. spot on !
Certain companies and playwrights know that they have nothing to offer by way of art so they try to shock by going overboard. Then they cry foul when we object to their rubbish.
Julian Borg
Jul 1st 2010, 12:03
It's called 'in-yer-face theatre', and it IS meant to shock and displace patrons from their comfort zone.... with their consent of course.
david debattista
Jun 30th 2010, 19:26
Robert Agius You are missing the point completely TRY AGAIN . Now let me tell you what I am ashamed about , people like you who have such a Tunneled awareness regarding such important issues. Second the fact that this filth got to the university , and Mr Agius do you think you can keep truck of each falling rock when it comes to once children. The problem is that if we start a mental conditioning regarding such issues at our university it will only harm our society. look at other countries with in the EU. It did not work for them and only had negative results. As for children if you are so sure about yours GOOD FOR YOU . My opinion is, when it comes to children one never knows! Robert my reasoning is based on what I see each and every day and not on what I think or believe, and they are all adults. Now if you still think that i should be ashamed, well i am not I know I am right unlike you I live abroad , then again it is your problem. My intention are for the best.
Marc Cabourdin
Jun 30th 2010, 19:09
All this is really troubling.
I have tried in vain to contact the various authorities to alert them to a much more dangerous situation.
Tomorrow thousands of young Maltese and tourists shall be attending the Isle of MTV concert for free.
Performing acts include Kid Rock.
Now I bravely navigated the net to research their artistic competence, and even though Kid Rock has been awarded with Grammys, most of his songs tell me, to 'f**k off'.
Worse still he calls people 'mother f**kers' and also says 'God d**n'; and in a number of his 'hits' he also demeans women.
This has affected me terribly, and I feel that most of the good catholic youngsters going to this event tomorrow don't really understand their misgivings.
How will they be cured? Will the girls out there want to give better milk shakes too?
Oh my word. Where are the censors? Where is the law? But worse still how did the Maltese organisers of this event allow this to happen?
I weep, I weep at such gross negligence.
Arrest these perpetrators, that offend the whole culture of our country.
A Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 22:05
Marc, you're right. File a complaint with the police. I am. why should this filth be shoved down our throats?
MBorg
Jun 30th 2010, 18:13
@ Robert Agius
Shall we split hairs ? They the actors will be doing it and we will be watching it , so?
We cannot come to a stage where anything goes. There must be a limit to the amount of filth that can be thrown at us in the name of " freedom of expression."
Andrew Farrugia
Jun 30th 2010, 18:03
Waaahhheyy! The entire humanist brigade is out in full force, shouting down all those who approve of the Civil Court's judgement, and demanding to have their questions answered to boot! They have certainly been rubbed the wrong way by this judgement and they are seeking all the help they can get, including that of the gremlins. Enjoy.
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 30th 2010, 19:58
As usual, you are wrong. Humanists are not 'out in full force', and the only people SHOUTING are the ones who resort to the Cap locks key. Take a look at the comments and you'll find they are all taking the Court;s side.
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 30th 2010, 20:03
And can you kindly elaborate on who these 'gremlins' are? Or is it just a pet insult for everyone who disagrees with you? I'll repeat what I told you in another thread: you seriously need a crash course in manners. (and don't ask me for lessons again, I've already told you it's beyond my capabilities)
Julian Borg
Jun 30th 2010, 17:58
Whilst I disagree with the banning of a work of art as a matter of principle, in this case there is a consideration to be made relating the fact that St. James Cavalier is a state-sponsored theatre and as such the state (i.e. the public) has a say on what can or cannot be performed there. Also as a matter of principle, I do not think the state should be involved in sponsoring the arts (or sports or anything such). I'm sorry Unifaun guys and artists in general, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
B Crocker
Jun 30th 2010, 17:32
How sad no more Shakespeare ,D H Lawrence .James Joyce all to be banned in Malta or will Malta censor them. What a sad time.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 19:38
Mr Crocker, you are completely missing the point. We accept Shakespeare, DH Lawrence, James Jones, etc. Their works are works of art. 'Stitching' is trash and breaches our Criminal Law in more than one provision.
GiovDeMartino
Jun 30th 2010, 17:26
No one has answered my very simple question: Why did the authorities permit a public theatre to screen nothing but hard core porn for many long years? WHY?
Franco Farrugia
Jun 30th 2010, 17:45
Why do I get the feeling that you are being ignored?
david debattista
Jun 30th 2010, 19:31
You are right, a good question. may be we did not have the know how to stop it .
but it is a good observation Mr DeMartino.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 17:08
It's absolutely useless for the producers to appeal because they have not even one single argument that is accepted by law in their favour.
The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ITSELF permits restrictions on freedom of expression for various reasons including, amongst others, ‘for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals’.
This means that freedom of expression is not absolute but subject to a number of limitations.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides in article 19, paragraph 3, that freedom of expression may be restricted ‘for respect of the rights or reputations of others’ and ‘for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals’.
God has created us free, but free to do good not evil! Whoever thinks that he or she is free to do evil is grossly mistaken. Doing evil is abuse of evil! And abuse is sanctioned by Moral Law and our Criminal Law.
Robert Agius
Jun 30th 2010, 17:23
@Joe Zammit
Doing is active, a play is something you watch - Passive. If you cannot distinguish between the two then that is YOUR problem. One chooses to go to a play and may find about the content before.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 19:28
Robert, doing includes all actions: speaking, laughing, weeping, helping, watching, smiling, jesticulating, acting in a representation, etc. One can transgress Moral Law and our Criminal Law in diverse ways.
david debattista
Jun 30th 2010, 16:51
Mr Vassallo What right has any body to force FILTH down our people's throat, especially those who will be the brain power of our country in the very near future. Respect common
decency and the law of the country, or LEAVE. Works of art should enlighten and better the human
condition and NOT SINK IT INTO THE ABYSS OF UTTER PERVERSION ! WHATS NEXT
Orgies as a party treat, adultery as the norm , wife swapping if under mutual consent . Yes they do take place and so do the devastating consequences on that society . Yes Mr Vassallo
the moral health of MY COUNTRY is my private property since I have children too!
Robert Agius
Jun 30th 2010, 17:28
nobody is forcing anything down your throat David. I hope adults are mature and responsible enough to decide for themselves. If you let YOUR children watch whatever they please then you should be ashamed of YOURSELF.
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 30th 2010, 17:49
You haven't answered my question. What gives you the right to order other people to leave? I'd like an answer, please.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 16:36
The Civil Court approved the mature decision of the Censorship Board.
Briefly, banning the play 'Stitches' was the only way to take and prevent this trash from being performed in Malta.
This is because the play would have breached several provisions of Maltese Law if it were performed in any theatre. We must remember that all theatres are public places at law. Our Criminal Law has a place also in theatres which are not places outside of the law.
Franco Farrugia
Jun 30th 2010, 17:44
At least, be good enough to get the name right. It's 'Stitching'.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 19:34
Franco, you had to be to be caught 'bhal mazzun'!
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jun 30th 2010, 16:17
I am very confused.
Norman Lowell rants and raves, he insults the Church, the Jews, the disabled and those who adopt childern of a different ethnic origin and Lou Bondi gets ticked off and fined by the BA instead!
When I wrote to say that action should be taken against Mr Lowell this was the feedback from YOU;
1) I was insulting the church/courts by asking the bishop/AG to fulfill their constitutional duties
2) I was breaching Mr Lowell's freedom of expression
3) I was exaggerating the danger because Mr Lowell is a lunatic; a figure of fun
I disagree with all three.
Now we have a play; a script which is pure FICTION . The play is something which one chooses to watch by paying for the privelege. On this script the entire weight of the Law in a 115 or 82 page sentence has fallen and there are people here who cannot see the difference? I just cannot believe it!
I am being told what to see and what not to see!!!! The Law really IS an ass after all!
j.zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 14:45
Swearing in Public may be illegal... but wouldn't the private viewing of a play where all those attending are consenting to the vulgarity be different?
david debattista
Jun 30th 2010, 12:05
WE Have our values, dignity, and respect for common decency. If you do not like it
move to another country, As for not being in touch with reality I can assure you that the Maltese
people are very much aware off what is out there, and what goes on in other countries.
So stop all this drama and respect our principles which the majority do.
As for the court ruling, yes,yes,yes, it is justified!
Raphael Vassallo
Jun 30th 2010, 15:40
Who are you to tell other people to leave? Anyone would think this country was your own private property.
Ramon Casha
Jun 30th 2010, 10:57
This judgement is a major setback to human rights in Malta.
The argument that "Since swearing was unacceptable in public... [it] could not be tolerated in plays" makes no sense at all. Murder is also unacceptable and illegal in real life, yet you can have a play (or film, book etc) that depicts murder.
Perhaps the court should have engaged the services of experts in this field, as it does whenever medical expertise is required. Clearly this judgement is based on a severely misinformed opinion.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 16:41
Ramon, you are still green to understand our Criminal Law!
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 10:19
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 30th 2010, 10:18
'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.
Paul Saliba
Jun 30th 2010, 10:15
"It's one thing to swear in public and be penalised justly. It's another to do it in an artistic context," he said, pointing out that nudity was not accepted in public but could not simply be made illegal in an artistic context."
Swearing in an artistic context? What the hell is that? No Mr Marshall, swearing remains swearing wherever and for whatever reason. If play writers cannot write a decent play without resorting to swearing, foul language, obscene and sexual gestures and acts and others disgusting tactics, manners and actions then they are no play writers at all.
Charles Sammut
Jun 30th 2010, 10:05
If this is going to be the policy, then I strongly suggest that censors start looking into some the lyrics of some of the rap/hip-hop trash passing as music these days. They glorify thuggery, gun violence, drug abuse, denigrating bitches, I mean, women, sex orgies and all those dubious delights which have crept into society. I cannot post examples here, but all you have to do is run a Google search.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 16:38
Charles, one evil does not condone another evil. Two evils do not make a good!
J Farrugia
Jun 30th 2010, 09:49
It the people who are shocked at the vulgarity of this Front against Censure. Yes we have to put an iron fist on vulgarity and obscenities. Those who commit them in public should be prosecuted and jailed according to law. We are fast becoming a perverted society. Perverted by the minorities.
Karl Consiglio
Jun 30th 2010, 09:35
If you don't like it, if you think it will offend you, then you don't go and watch it, but that don't mean you ban it.
Joe Zammit
Jun 30th 2010, 16:37
Karl, you seem to be still green to understand our Criminal Law!
S. Calleja
Jul 2nd 2010, 09:05
@Joe Zammit: Funny to read such a comment from someone who insists that Criminal Law is a form of censorship. Since when are murder and theft an act of expressing oneself?
Joe, you may wish to polish up your definition of censorship here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
S. Calleja
Jul 2nd 2010, 09:07
U prosit Karl. I watched Kont Diga' at St James Cavalier and you were awesome, as were all the other actors. Prosit!