Update 3: Front against Censorship insists it it not contesting amendments on child porn
Update 3 -
The Front Against Censorship insisted this afternoon that it was against any form of pornography involving children.
Reacting to a statement issued by the Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, it said the the ministry had either misunderstood its criticism of recent amendments to the Criminal Law or was deliberately trying to mislead the public.
The Front said that in its criticism it had attacked changes made to Article 208 of the Criminal Code, which made no reference to child pornography.
The measures intended to protect children were found in articles 208A, 208B as well as the newly inserted articles 208AA, 208AB, 208AC, among others.
The Front said it was reiterating that it opposed pornography when this included children, and it had not challenged the amendments to those articles.
It pointed out that its own suggestions for legal changes had included a clause saying that:
“The distribution and production of pornography should not be illegal as long as it does not involve human trafficking, the abuse of minors, the exploitation of the human person or any other criminal acts defined by law.”
The Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs in reply said that it welcomed the Front’s 'change of position against pornography involving children'.
It pointed out that in its earlier press release, the Front had spoken of “dismay at some of the changes approved by Parliament to the Criminal Code.”
"It is therefore logical to believe that the Front was objecting to other amendments to Article 208 that came into effect on 9th July 2010 apart from the increase in penalties related to the criminal offence of producing, circulating, or possessing pornographic material with the intent of distribution or display in a public place."
Ultimately, the ministry said, it was the Front Against Censorship that tried to mislead the public into thinking that the amendments to Article 208 of the Criminal Code which were approved unanimously by the House of Representatives to better protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation, were intended to serve as a form of censorship.
In another statement earlier, the Ministry said that amendments to the Criminal Code which the Front Against Censorship was vehemently opposed to, were intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, pornography and grooming on the internet with the intent of engaging them in sexual acts and paedophilia.
The amendments to Article 208 of the Criminal Code came into effect on Friday.
The ministry said the first of these amendments laid down an 18-month to five-year prison sentence for the offence of compelling a minor to perform sexual activities with another person and causing a minor to witness sexual abuse or activities even if the minor did not participate in the activities.
The same prison sentence also applied to anyone who caused a minor to participate in real or simulated sexual conduct or the exhibition of sexual organs, including through technological means, or who knowingly attended a pornographic performance involving the participation of a minor.
The punishment for the abuse of minors was increased by one to two degrees if the minor suffered physical or mental harm as a result of the sexual abuse, if the minor was a vulnerable person, if the offence was committed by two or more persons acting together, if the offender lived with or was a member of the victim’s family and if the offender was a relapser with similar offences.
Furthermore, the definition of the possession of pornographic material depicting minors had been extended to the acquisition through information and communication technology. Such an offence carries with it a prison term of up to three years.
The ministry said there are also stiffer penalties for those who are convicted of possessing pornographic material of a minor while holding a position of trust with that minor. The penalties have been extended to include any depiction of a minor of any age involved in acts of bestiality, brutality, sadism or torture.
In such cases, the applicable prison sentences have been increased from between 18 months and seven years to between two and nine years when the offender is convicted of producing, transmitting, distributing, selling, importing, exporting or making available indecent material involving the said minor.
The ministry insisted that such amendments were intended to protect children from whosoever, by means of information and communication technology, proposed to meet them for the purpose of committing any acts of paedophilia or sexual abuse.
Offenders found guilty of such behaviour would, where the proposal was followed by material acts leading to such a meeting, be liable on conviction to imprisonment for between one and four years.
The ministry said that new provisions had also been introduced to address the advertisement of sex tourism. It said that this now carried a prison sentence of between one and two years. The same applies to anyone convicted of being involved in travel arrangements for such purposes.
The ministry said these amendments were first presented to the House and published in the Government Gazette on February 12 and there had been ample time for public debate. The Bill was unanimously approved by Parliament on June 15.
It said that similar legislation intended to protect children and other vulnerable persons from sexual exploitation exists in most European countries.
"The fact that The Front Against Censorship is opposing such legal provisions is a clear indication that the Front has either failed to understand the aim of these amendments or is evidence of the fact that the Front does not endorse the same values the people of this country have consistently upheld," the ministry said.
In a statement which had caused the minstry's reaction, the Front Against Censorship had expressed dismay at some of the changes approved by Parliament.
The front complained that the recent amendments had raised the penalties for violation of Article 208 on the production, circulation and possession of material which could be deemed pornographic if intended for display in a public place. The previous punishment was a jail term of not more than six months or a fine of not more than €465.87 , or both. Under the new amendment, the offence is now punishable by 6-12 months in jail or by a fine of between €1,000 and €3,000 or both.
"The Front is disappointed at the fact that instead of repealing the harsh prison sentences which would be the shame of any European nation, the law has actually been amended to increase them.
"The Front wishes to remind that this is the same law used to prosecute persons in the Ir-Realta case, and that therefore, whoever voted in favour of this Act not only agreed with the draconian proceedings taken against the student newspaper, but also wanted to punish such activities more harshly. The Front believes that a culture of terror is being created amongst the artistic community in this country, who fear being prosecuted if they include sexual themes in their work."
It said that this update to the law was even more shocking when one considered that the National Cultural Policy being drafted at the moment had made it a point of encouraging openness and artistic creativity. It also came in the shadow of the ruling on the Stitching case which indicated that banning the play did not violate the theatre company's constitutional rights to free speech, and the recent removal of erotic pictures from the Gozo Contemporary Arts Festival.
"The Front thus has reason to believe that the censorship phenomenon is becoming steadily worse as time passes, and wishes to appeal to people who have artistic freedom at heart to attend the funeral march for art which will start at the Valletta City Gate on the 24th of July at 10:30am. During this demonstration, the Front will be symbolising the death of art at the ever more authoritarian hands of the censorship regime "
92 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
David Caruana
Jul 16th 2010, 16:29
@ Joe Zammit
"What we do know is that it is a $97 billion industry, and $13 billion of that comes from the United States. Also, looking at the sheer number of pornographic Web sites, we see that it's huge.
ZENIT: How does this use compare between men and women?
Kleponis: Currently about 83% of pornography addicts are men, and 17% are women.
For women, it's the chat rooms rather than the visual pornography that they're looking at.
Men and women are wired differently. Men are visually stimulated.
When a man looks at a pornographic image, there is a chemical reaction going on in the brain. Dopamine is released, there is euphoria, and, when combined with sexual arousal and orgasm, it becomes what I call the "perfect recipe" for an addiction. Thus they're going to be more attracted to the pictures and videos. "
From : PAPA RATZINGER FORUM
http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/discussione.aspx?idd=354544&p=85
At least have the decency to point out that you are quoting someone.
Brainwashing at its best!
Joe Zammit
Jul 15th 2010, 21:01
Pornography is a $97 billion industry, and $13 billion of that comes from the United States.
Also, looking at the sheer number of pornographic Web sites, we see that it's huge.
Currently about 83% of pornography addicts are men, and 17% are women.
For women, it's the chat rooms rather than the visual pornography that they're looking at.
Men and women are wired differently. Men are visually stimulated.
When a man looks at a pornographic image, there is a chemical reaction going on in the brain. Dopamine is released, there is euphoria, and, when combined with sexual arousal and orgasm, it becomes the "perfect recipe" for an addiction. Thus they're going to be more a attracted to the pictures and videos."
MPs, fight pornography with all your might!
Joe Fenech
Jul 15th 2010, 11:03
Malta wanted a staunch Catholic prime minister as a link to socio-political events of the 50/60s, so now LUMP IT!
Alex Ellul
Jul 15th 2010, 12:36
Excuse my intrusion: Malta, mostly, did not want Alfred Sant as Prime Minister. I think you are still living in the distant past. Do you realise that 70% of the poulation do not have a first hand historical knowledge of the 1960's, either because they were to young or not born at all, while most of the people who had a hand on the wheels of histroy during the 60's are dead. Please try again.
Joe Fenech
Jul 16th 2010, 02:07
Alex Ellul:
I know that history lessons in Malta dodge recent Maltese history which is ridiculous especially since we're obsessed about knights, l-istorja tal-gbejna, Hagar Qim, il-gebla ta' Majmuna, l-Gharusa tal-Mosta, Hasan ta' Birzebbuga ...
Re Alfred Sant: how can a brilliant intellectual possibly be a prime-minister of a medieval nation - a nation that has never experienced an Enlightenment period? Imagine Malta being led by Vaclav Havel or Romano Prodi?!
And please don't even try to hint I'm Labour! I've been away from the little rock for over half a century!
Alex Ellul
Jul 16th 2010, 10:59
The quest for knowledge about our past, also known as HISTORY, such as the Knights, Hagar Qim etc is not an obsession. An obsession is believing blindfoldedly in a politcal theory and/or a politican even after the theory or politican gets past their sell by date.
Joe Fenech
Jul 16th 2010, 15:38
Alex Ellul:
"The quest for knowledge about our past, also known as HISTORY, such as the Knights, Hagar Qim etc is not an obsession. An obsession is believing blindfoldedly in a politcal theory and/or a politican even after the theory or politican gets past their sell by date."
WHO mentioned 'obsession'? Wars, involvement of the knights... stem out of politics not comic books! So what's the difference between that and the event of the 1950/60s? Or maybe it's not convenient for some people...
Joe Fenech
Jul 16th 2010, 15:47
Alex Ellul:
"An obsession is believing blindfoldedly in a politcal theory and/or a politican even after the theory or politican gets past their sell by date."
Are you referring to Sant and Havel? You seem to know little about them and their work! Do you REALLY think that people who are not in office anymore have gone past their sell by date? Try to also apply that to Blair, Clinton, Gore, Kohl, Chirac, Jospin... Oh come on, be mature!
jcamilleri
Jul 14th 2010, 22:50
@David Caruana
How low can you go Mr Caruana? You do not have the decency of arguing sensibly; you just throw mud leaving your hands so dirty.
David Caruana
Jul 15th 2010, 08:59
Dear jcamilleri,
Please tell me where in my comment did I throw mud? Why are you trying to turn this argument on me when it is more than evident that the Minister is throwing mud at the FAC only because he exhausted his arguments.
As I said, the Minister has a copy of the FAC's proposals - he knows well that the FAC always supported legislation which protects the innocent, but still he went out publicly trying to say that the FAC is attacking these laws. That is FALSE and that is what mudslinging is.
Again, even you in your comment did not really do an effort to ARGUE SENSIBLY. Where's your argument jcamilleri?!
The minister owes an apology to the Front and to the Nation for spreading misinformation. In his position, one should take greater care of what he is saying, especially when it is written in black on white that "pornography should not be illegal AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT INVOLVE HUMAN TRAFFICKING, THE ABUSE OF MINORS, THE EXPLOITATION OF THE HUMAN PERSON OR ANY OTHER CRIMINAL ACTS DEFINED BY LAW."
Ironically, this guy is the Minister of JUSTICE
C. Mifsud
Jul 14th 2010, 19:05
What next? Will processions with statues of Our Lady with a little of her breast exposed ( I believe it's our Lady of Grace} be stopped, Or shall we take the Parish Priests of these parishes to Court. U le are veru Pajjiz tal-Mickey Mouse,
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Jul 14th 2010, 18:29
Is this what Malta wants?
http://www.artknowledgenews.com/2010-07-13-00-47-24-russian-curators-convicted-today-of-inciting-religious-hatred.html
Joe Fenech
Jul 15th 2010, 10:58
What's your point? We live in a pluralist society. Obviously...Malta doesn't!
Alex Ellul
Jul 15th 2010, 12:01
A horse is a horse is a horse. It is defined by its DNA and it cannot be called by any other name nor any other animal be called a horse. FAC are looking at an elephant and calling it a horse. They are mistaking irrelevant and irreverent productions for art genius, which aren't. What FAC should have done first is to give us a definition of what is art. In my opinion they have got it mostly wrong and are putting the honest art lovers in bad light. If I were an art genius I would definitely be much worried by this extremist organisation.
colin stanley
Jul 14th 2010, 16:30
I don't think that you can compare nudity in churches and museums,to this so called art,for example, the statue of David in Florence is nude but it is not vulgar, but if David had an erection,it would be different, don't you think? and all of you who are in favour of such art ( I am sure it's not going places anyway ) would you like your teenage daughters to read it.?
G. Mifsud.
Jul 15th 2010, 09:30
Exactly opposite David in Florence, there is a statue of Neptune, who is proudly sporting an erection.
Miguel Micallef
Jul 15th 2010, 20:33
Owned :)
Robert Agius
Jul 14th 2010, 16:23
@ Joe Zammit
What can you tell us about your beloved institution then when it comes to child pornography and the criminal code? the one you so like to defend who have code (or at least should have) - the divine law and the ones that all humans are meant to follow - the legal...Where you one of those who kept quiet or perhaps defended these folks?
Re criminal code, section 208, can you at least see the difference between child pornography and that between consenting adults?
You are the perfect example of what Nietzsche calls 'bad conscience' and 'slave morality'.
Joe Zammit
Jul 14th 2010, 16:14
A mother whose daughter was murdered by a man addicted to violent internet porn has completed her fight to have such images banned. Jane Longhurst, 31, was strangled by Graham Coutts, 39, from Hove, Sussex. He was jailed for at least 26 years. Her mother Liz, from Berkshire, backed by Reading West MP Martin Salter, campaigned for three years to ban violent online porn.
The ban is part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Possession of sexually violent images will now be punishable by up to three years in jail. The bill had its final reading on Thursday where it received Royal Assent. Under the new rules, criminal responsibility shifts from the producer - who is responsible under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act (OPA) - to the consumer.
MPs, fight pornography with all your might!
Alex Ellul
Jul 14th 2010, 16:02
FAC says: “The distribution and production of pornography should not be illegal as long as it does not involve human trafficking, the abuse of minors, the exploitation of the human person or any other criminal acts defined by law"
FAC members should take note to the fact that in most cases, actors taking part in the production of porn-stuff are drug-addicts, driven to this drivel by their need for a quick buck for the next shot. FAC is thus supporting the drug trade, the drug cartels and the whole dirty machine, beginning to end. Thy are actually destroying the meaning of art in the name of drivel wrapped in political correctness.
Lets start with 'human trafficking' - Female porn actors are normally girls trafficked illegally for prostitution and production of porn with drugs on the side to make them slavesof the trade.
'Abuse of minors': How would one know the age of a girl in a porn film? Do they show a birth certificate?
'exploitation of the human person' If porn is not (S)exploitation then i do not know the meaning of the word.
'criminal acts' - The above three points are all criminal acts.
Chris Fenech
Jul 14th 2010, 15:09
See you in Valletta on the 24th of July
Maria Formosa
Jul 14th 2010, 15:03
To FAC Art Killers ! When you produce 'shocking filth' to a gullible section of the Maltese population in the name of art you are insulting the intellgence of mature people. "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever" says Keats. His poem still pervades beuty after so many years and lives on to posterity.
These recent "shocking" productions in the name of art are insane and filthy betraying corrupt views of the pseudo artist will soon end up in the dustbin of art to mark your march for the funeral of art.
Joseph E Briffa
Jul 14th 2010, 14:25
Since the advent of the internet - and the freedom to access whatever porno sites one likes unless it involves children - I have noticed that there are less sex offenders around. I remember up to a decade ago, men playing with themselves hidden behind trees while peeping at a couple making love in a field or at a topless lady sunning herself on a beach. Probably these characters had never seen the breasts of an attractive woman before. These were the happenings resulting from the repression of anything connected with nudity or sex. Up to a decade ago, not even the Playboy magazine was allowed into Malta. Today not even a 14 year old would be impressed by its contents..
Dylan Olliver
Jul 14th 2010, 14:14
Interesting !!! So the Front Against Censorship IS in favour of censorship !!!!
Joe Cremona
Jul 14th 2010, 14:13
The distribution and production of pornography should not be illegal as long as it does not involve human trafficking, the abuse of minors, the exploitation of the human person or any other criminal acts defined by law. THAT IS PERVERSITY AND VULGARITY, CERTAINLY NOT ARTS. AND AS SUCH SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY JAIL TERMS. This Front is not protecting anything connected with Arts. It's just protecting its own hamallagni and its own members who want to indoctrinate us with their perversity. That is not on and it wont be allowed in public no matter what lame excuses this front will try to bring up. What is wrong cannot be right no matter what colour you paint it.
Joe Zammit
Jul 14th 2010, 13:44
A little (or much) of it every day, pornography becomes an addiction, and this happens especially when one starts thinking pornography does no harm. Here I am not referring to children but to adults, to those who think they are free to do what they want in their room.
Ironically, they do not even derive any pleasure from it because pornography leaves them literally drained. It drains their energy and bank accounts. As soon as they turn away from the screen, they feel worse. Pornography unconsciously turns them into slaves. It is a very serious problem indeed.
MPs, fight pornography with all your might!
edwin formosa
Jul 14th 2010, 13:38
Prosit u Grazzi Ministru minn ghand il-Maltin kollha li jridu jrabbu lil uliedhom sura ta nies fost tant ilpup li jfittxu biex jeqirdu dak kollu li hu safi.
Alfred Bugeja
Jul 14th 2010, 13:26
@ all pro-FAC commentators
The FAC textually said that it opposes "some of the changes approved by Parliament". The use of the word "some" implies that there is MORE THAN ONE amendment that it is objecting to. Yet, it only goes on to mention one particular amendment, specifically the increase of the penalties related to the main body of article 208.
Could anyone be so kind as to indicate which OTHER amendment to Article 208 the FAC is objecting to? Is it Article 208AA, 208AB, or 208AC or any other article?
There's surely something else they're objecting to other than what they mentioned in their press release. Or maybe they should retract their press release altogether.
Joseph Schembri
Jul 14th 2010, 13:25
So two men were jailed for 6 months each for disfiguring a 14 year old girl, causing untold physical suffering and almost killing her ( http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100712/local/company-director-driver-jailed-for-mini-bus-incident ) but if the police find a picture of topless girl of 17 on your computer you face a year or more in jail.
Isthi Ministru! You are only pandering to the most conservative of populist sentiments by making anything remotely sexual illegal and punished by ever harsher punishments.
Ramon Casha
Jul 14th 2010, 13:22
"The Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs said today that amendments ... were intended to protect children"
They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but these are some pretty big paving stones.
Of course, no MP would want to be seen as putting up stumbling blocks when the objective is "to protect the children", but one has to consider what the law or amendment actually says. It seems that the affected portions of the law goes beyond child pornography, and encompasses "regular" pornography. Thus far, to my knowledge, there is no objective, legally recognised definition of what constitutes pornography. Under these laws, a photographer who produces a nude portrait could be spending the rest of the year in a jail cell if the presiding judge or magistrate decides that it is pornographic.
Jessica DeBattista
Jul 14th 2010, 13:01
There was a time when painting the nude was taboo in Malta and it is known that any artist who felt the need to study it had to do it in the privacy of his own home or else with a circle of close friends. Those times have been over for a long time now and the nude study is enjoying great popularity.
There is an upsurge of interest in the nude, for the nude is God’s most beautiful creation and should be admired and given its due importance. But it is one thing for an artist to express himself by exploiting the human figure to come up with valid works worthy to be considered artistic and tasteful, and it is totally another thing to “exploit” the human figure for the sole purpose of titillating the viewer.
One has to be considerate about the dignity of the average person who finds such works offensive. If one really must produce pornographic works, which is not saying that they could not be artistically valid, however one should have the common decency to show such work in the privacy of one’s home or else in the circle of like-minded friends.
Joseph Schembri
Jul 14th 2010, 12:51
In the middle ages it was witches, in Mac Carthy USA it was communists, in North Korea it is 'enemies of the people'. Whatever enemy the government chooses to target (in our case it is so called paedophiles) - the final outcome is that democracy, civil rights and liberty suffer.
Shame on the minister of Justice for speaking out against civil rights such as divorce and making it illegal to look at whatever one likes on the internet. Shame!
Joe Zammit
Jul 14th 2010, 16:50
Joseph, divorce is not a right! If you think it is a right, you are grossly mistaken. The Minister took the right step in the right direction at the right time.
Joseph Micallef
Jul 14th 2010, 12:48
Nude art is not pornography though - so I wonder why such art was banned in Gozo lately!
George Vella
Jul 15th 2010, 02:38
Mr. Micallef, just to explain the difference in nude art and pornography may I please explain. When an artist paints any of the sexual parts of a male or a female as a whole or in part in a picture that is considered as art in most countries, yet when a photographer shoots a picture of a female or a male person that is considered the equal likeness of that individual, this falls under the criteria of pornography. That is why lately there was this ban in Gozo because photographs were presented to the public in a public place, and this falls under the criminal law.
Joe Zammit
Jul 14th 2010, 12:44
Amendments of the Criminal Code, section 208:
A RIGHT STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!
Ramon Casha
Jul 14th 2010, 13:30
Actually, it's a step in the FAR RIGHT direction.
C Gatt
Jul 14th 2010, 16:30
And has Mr Zammit nothing to say about this:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100714/world-news/print-of-munch-s-madonna-sells-for-record-1-25-million
David Caruana
Jul 14th 2010, 12:34
How low can you go Mr.Minister?!
You know well that the Front has always spoken in favour of Laws that protect the innocent. Now you're trying to give a bad image by twisting facts and trying to hint that the Front asking for less control on paedophilia?!
Shame on you and your dirty politics!
This is how your party stood in government for all these years - by deception!
E.Schembri
Jul 14th 2010, 12:31
@ Fabien Sant Fourneir
What a lame useless claim you have just made. With your line of thinking I can get away with animal torture, murder, vandalism and arsenal, as all fall under the category of expressing ones feelings!
However, since we live in a civilised society, we cannot simply do what we want, we must observe the law for the benefit of society.
And that's what the government is doing, protecting society from sick minds that want to disgrace the human body in the name of art!!!
FAC is nothing more than a bunch of spoiled losers who don't know how to express themselves in a sane artistic manner and thus are trying to legalise their corrupted views of the beauty of art.
Well done to the government!
Fabien Sant Fournier
Jul 14th 2010, 14:15
Schembri; clearly you did not understand. I was addressing Stanley's view of art. i.e his idea of classical/romantic art and how art should be aesthetically pleasing for it to be considered art. These ideas of purity of medium and universality which are rife in Malta and part of the reason why the art scene is practically dead!
Torture?? Murder?? Nowhere did I say that an artists can break the law in order to reach their artistic objectives. An artist however has every right to use whatever medium he sees fit...it doesnt have to be visually appealing. You or I have no right to decide what is, and isnt art! That was my point!
Karl Consiglio
Jul 14th 2010, 12:25
Once you at it you should ban matchboxes, lest they wind up in the hands of kids. Ban the average seductive perfume advert once you at it, particularly those which have a women seemingly reaching an orgasm as she sprays it on. Oh come on, I found out all about sex from a very young age, and back then we didn't even have the internet, all it took was a school friend, an alpha dog to let us know he found a porno in his dad's closet, today with the internet its a billion times more accessible and kids are not stupid, they know, or find out soon enough about sex regardless of all this banning nonsense. Does it mess their heads up? No, they just find out about it today and not tomorrow.
Raymond Bezzina
Jul 14th 2010, 12:14
Pornography and immorality in a person could become bad habits,
with a strong tendency to enslave and allure that person towards more
evil practices, where one could also end up in being a very dangerous
criminal.
M Azzopardi
Jul 14th 2010, 12:27
The internet offers millions of websites containing immoral and pornographic content - do you see any more sex offenders around? I actually think that we're becoming a bit more civilized ever since we opened our minds to some foreign content.
This censorship laws will only let Malta fade into the background, making it less and less attractive to modern tourism and investment.
Joseph Schembri
Jul 14th 2010, 13:01
Junk food, cigarettes, alcohol, heck even sports can 'enslave' a person but none of them is illegal.
Robert Attard
Jul 14th 2010, 13:19
If you're saying that watching adult pornography turns you evil , I should therefore presume that having sex in the first place (i.e experiencing the real thing) should turn you evil too.????
According to statistics about 60% of men ages between 18 and 40 visit adult pornographic sites, browse through magazines, and watch adult porn movies. So you're saying that 60% of men have a high risk to commit crimes???
My opinion is that the only way adult pornography can harm an adult is if it leads him/her to neglect his/her partner/relationships.
Alex Ellul
Jul 14th 2010, 14:26
@M Azzopardi "..do you see any more sex offenders around?.." If you close your eyes and your ears, then, yes you will not be able to 'see any more sex offenders around'. I will not be arrogant and blame the explosion of sex offences on the net, because i m no expert on the thing, but one cannot just ignore the bare facts and the truth, can one?
J.Tonna
Jul 14th 2010, 11:40
''Culture of terror being created' - who is creating this culture of terror??????????
David Caruana
Jul 14th 2010, 11:58
Did you read the whole article or did you just stop at the title?
David Caruana
Jul 14th 2010, 11:14
One suggestion to our country's administration : For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.
If one looks at history, whenever and wherever freedom has been removed from the people, the people "responded" strongly.
We demand the same freedom as our European partners have.
Christian Sciberras
Jul 14th 2010, 11:08
A stupid situation turning out ridiculous!
The Front is simply an egoistic group against control and regulations.
This is not open-mindedness, this is extreme liberalism, which sane people know is completely wrong.
I'm actually disappointed that this "Front for freedom" is turning out to be another lame scheme at mass egoism.
J Farrugia
Jul 14th 2010, 11:01
This Front is showing that it is no authority on what ART really means.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 14th 2010, 12:24
On the otherhand, I suppose you are an expert.
Ramon Casha
Jul 14th 2010, 13:29
The Front has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be art experts on what art really means, although there may be many artists among them.
One of the most important points about art is that it should not be shackled. To have an authority on what is art goes against the grain. If there is an artist to produce it, and someone who appreciates it, and they both call it art, then it is art. It might not be your cup of tea, but then not everybody likes tea.
J Farrugia
Jul 14th 2010, 10:59
CULTURE OF TERROR... dont exagerate. You dont know what terror really means.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 14th 2010, 12:27
Terror is when someone is imprisoned (or threatened with imprisonment) for writing something that in 99% of the world is not considered an offence at all.
Karl Consiglio
Jul 14th 2010, 10:56
The trouble is that the more its being censored, the more we want it, as a result I fear it become the only kind of art around for a long time, so its best they quit this banning nonsense so that the craze for this kind of art may pass, and we may thereby move on to other things along with the rest of the world.
Ramon Mizzi
Jul 14th 2010, 12:12
Well said Karl. The more we censor, the more it creates curiosity, but go and explain this to our authorities who are in fact at 'war' with the 'liberals' for something far higher than artistic censorship, but total control of the minds so that they can keep their seats in government.
E.Muscat
Jul 14th 2010, 12:33
@K.C:it will not pass,it will get worse! Curiosity without control is like a wondering child that does not know where to stop.We need the brakes to appreciate the freedom.
Alex Ellul
Jul 14th 2010, 10:41
This Front-Against-Censorship sounds more like an extreme anarchic organisation than a protector of art. And speaking of ART, can someone please define to me and my dog what ART is? I believe that poet John Keats had defined quite well in his poem Endymion: “A THING OF BEAUTY IS A JOY FOREVER: Its loveliness increases; it will never Pass into nothingness; ..” If we take this as the benchmark for what is art, or what is not art, and apply it to contemporary writings such as Stitching or ir-Realta, other writings, and other works of art such as the infamous crucifix-in-horse-urine that passed as a work of art sponsored by the state of New York some time before 9/11, then I would say that Shakespeare’s plays and Keats poems surely fall in this category, having stood the test of time, while ‘Stitching’ will be thrown in the dustbin of art in a few years’ time. The urine used for the crucifix-in-horse-urine was drained down the sewers, literally and metaphorically, many years ago and would have been forgotten by now, if it wasn’t for its vulgarity and insulting message.
FAC are not art lovers, but art killers.
Kevin Cassar
Jul 14th 2010, 14:20
To you: Art is anything that touches our senses and/or triggers emotion.
To your dog: Bow wow, woof woof, bark bark.
Alex Ellul
Jul 15th 2010, 11:50
@Kevin cassar: Your definition of art: Art is anything that touches our senses and/or triggers emotion. Also false senses and warped emotions?
" Bow wow, woof woof, bark bark." Is this a quotation from Shakespeare or what? Bet you think that what you have written is art. God help the geniuses of the future from the Kevin Cassars of today.
colin stanley
Jul 14th 2010, 10:30
Don't get me wrong, I love women as much as the next man, but that doesn't mean,that explecit sex, and degrading women, plus, blasphamy and swearing is called being artistic (I know that it happens in everyday life ) to me that is being a HAMALLU. if you are an artist do something that pleases the eye, something that you can look at and enjoy.
Fabien Sant Fourneir
Jul 14th 2010, 11:46
What a traditional view of art! Art does not exist solely for its aesthetic value but is a form of expression for the artist! Now if you dont want to view this type of art, fine, dont look for it! but artists have every right to express themselves as they please.
Alex Ellul
Jul 14th 2010, 12:07
Fabien Sant Fourneir: Agreed, an 'artist' has got the right to watch and admire HIS OWN work of 'art' for eternity, but he has no right shoving it down our own intelligence and force us to admit, even when it is not, art. This is human right standing on its head. This is a rotten way of of destroying the meaning of art.
Joseph E Briffa
Jul 14th 2010, 10:23
If you ask people in Malta what they understand by censorship, you will find that over 90% would say that it's a measure to curb nudity. Blasphemy, swearing, making exorbitant profits and cheating in business dealings, stealing, vandalising trees, dirtying the streets, damaging other people's property, ruining people's reputations, physically hurting people during a quarrel are considered relatively petty. . But sculptures and paintings of the nude - particularly the female nude - is considered shocking. They are completely oblivious to the fact that our churches are full of paintings of nude figures. The Musei Vaticani and in particular the Cappella Sistina are probably the largest collection of nude figures and sculptures. Sex is considered a dirty thing; indeed the most offensive thing a person can indulge in; particularly in the case of women. It sems as though the presence of Islam in Malta a thousand years ago has left an indelible mark on the outlook of the most Maltese.
David Buttigieg
Jul 14th 2010, 11:01
And then that ultra violent film "The Passion of the Christ" got a U rating, i.e. even suitable for toddlers!
Yes, the censor board thought that that film would not negatively affect my three year old, but seeing a pair of breasts is too much for adults to take!
Only in Malta!
E.Schembri
Jul 14th 2010, 12:43
There is an ocean of difference between nude art and pornography!
Either you haven't read the article in full or you simply want to impose your corrupt sexual views on the rest of society.
If you want to view pornographic material, feel free to satisfy your impulses in the privacy of your home (no one is denying you that right, unless, its involves minors, in which case you are a sick retard and deserve jail time anyways).
However don't come and stuff pornographic material down the throat of Joe public in the name of ART!! The government has a duty to protect public society.
edwin formosa
Jul 14th 2010, 14:21
For the answer to this pertinent question and to read much more enlightened commentary on the need for art to represent the whole truth of the dignity of the human person, please enjoy Peter Bakinski’s full essay at:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008_docs/Classical_nudes_and_pornography.pdf
Joe Fenech
Jul 14th 2010, 10:20
So are we going to be arresting topless bathers, people swearing and being obscene during festas (you'll need to arrest hundreds), stop MTV and most pop/RAP/R n B song, censor the internet,...?
Well done people: you got what you wanted!
MALTA IS A SAD, PATHETIC COUNTRY THAT DESERVES THE WORST!
M Azzopardi
Jul 14th 2010, 12:17
Ouch - A bit too harsh. Malta is turning out to be pathetic on a political and decision making level, yes - but I don't think it deserves the worst. We should take the example of other EU countries and feel proud of our country - that is the ONLY way we can ever move forward.. bu pulling together.
Regarding this censorship issue.. big farce. I wish it ends soon for the sake of our image.
C Farrugia
Jul 14th 2010, 10:05
Art is an expression of the person. If its a nude or an erotic image by a foreign artist us Maltese would praise his/her works. On the other hand if a Maltese artist (being writer, painter, actor, singer etc) decide to jump over the wall of the Maltese mouth gag he/she are deemed vulgar.
What baffles me is the hypocrisy of sectors within our society that accept adult magazines on bookshelves, watch films that are described as soft-porn on TV, browse the internet for porn but are unable to accept a Maltese artist that wants to share his/her works.
However, history has taught us that those that have oppressed art have always had hidden agendas related to controlling or oppressing society. Look at all dictators and 'witch hunters'.
I feel ashamed that justice and law oppress artists while real abusers are still unleashed in our society abusing of our vulnerable sectors of society. So please let us read what we want and instead of ghost hunting writers better look at the real worms within our society that are abusing of our laws with the benediction of authorities.
K. Pullicino
Jul 14th 2010, 10:26
Let me tell you why this hypocrisy exists. It's because of the other sector of society that think that the word "freedom" entails bulldozing over everyone else's right to the same freedom. Didn't you see what happened when a politician said that he thinks that certain movies shouldn't be allowed in hotels? You were the ones that accused him of hypocrisy and whatnot and here you are, accusing us of hypocrisy because porn is public.
This only leads me to believe that these guys have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and are only flaunting buzzwords around without actually knowing what they mean.
David Caruana
Jul 14th 2010, 11:57
K.Pullicino:
"You"? "Us"? Since when this has become a you vs us thing?
Oh I forgot this is Malta - duality at its best - football, politics, village festas and every blessed public opinion.
Take a chill pill guys, what the FAC is proposing is not anarchy or 10-year-olds collecting Playboy instead of Calciatori. What they are proposing is that any adult should be his own judge of what suits him/her and what not.
This ability to chose what you want to be exposed to or effected by comes with EDUCATION, so those who lack it are free to sound their voices in favour of censorship.
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 14th 2010, 12:19
@ K Pullicino:
"It's because of the other sector of society that think that the word "freedom" entails bulldozing over everyone else's right to the same freedom".
Give us at least one example where you are forced to watch or read anything.
K. Pullicino
Jul 14th 2010, 12:47
"what the FAC is proposing is not anarchy or 10-year-olds collecting Playboy instead of Calciatori"
In the same way, the laws of Malta aren't promoting terror. In my education, I learnt that in this world you aren't living in solitude, completely cut off from everyone else but rather that every single action I take will propagate and affect all those around me.
I'm not one for splitting people into "us" and "you" but please keep in mind that calling people hypocrites as if all our actions are pristine is not something I take lightly.
M Attard
Jul 14th 2010, 10:04
On this day...Quatorze Juillet..which signalled the beginning of Freedom,Equality and Liberty once again the people are in chains. Democracy in peril and we do nothing about it. Rise and fight the tyranny of the extreme right!
edwin formosa
Jul 14th 2010, 13:58
" .................once again the people are in chains" u hallijna Majsi Attard fejn sejjer b'rasek !
K. Pullicino
Jul 14th 2010, 09:57
And these so-called liberals are promoting a culture of anarchy. All we're hoping for is some moderation, a sense of respect for your compatriots and a degree of order.
Also, just one of the many examples of "shame of any European nation" is that in Germany, video games cannot display any sort of blood on screen.
U Alla jbierek aħna ħa nagħmluha tal-bullies u kulħadd ħa jgħid li jrid mingħajr ma jkun responssabli ta' li qal.
P.Borg
Jul 14th 2010, 10:23
Ehe, kullhadd jghid li jrid minghajr ma jkun responsabli ta li qal sakemm ma jinstigax l-vjolenza, jekk m'intiex capaci tissaporti kliem hieles ma haqqekx tkun parti minn socjeta adulta. L-unika raguni ghala ghadna dawn l-ligijiet assurdi hi li l-maltin ma jafux jahsbu ghalihom infushom, u meta tipresentalhom opinjoni tkun wkoll qed tikkonvincijhom minn din l-opinjoni.
Ramon Casha
Jul 14th 2010, 10:53
No, "these liberals" are demanding the right to decide for themselves. They utterly reject the idea that a self-professed "expert" is better able to decide on such matters.
What YOU are demanding is the right to control what I can see, read, hear and say. What you are saying is that your views are somehow superior to everybody else's, and therefore what you're showing is a sense of disrespect for everyone.
K. Pullicino
Jul 14th 2010, 11:15
@Ramon Casha: "What YOU are demanding is the right to control what I can see, read, hear and say."
Let me ask you a couple of questions, Ramon: Firstly, what is wrong with there being a form of authority in a society? Secondly, do you consider yourself mature enough to be totally unaffected by something that you experience, see or hear, and consequently, do you think that the rest of the Maltese nation is as mature?
Kenneth Cassar
Jul 14th 2010, 12:23
@ K Pullicino:
"Firstly, what is wrong with there being a form of authority in a society?"
Straw man argument. Just because authority is justified in many cases does not imply it is justified in all cases. What if some government said "you are no longer allowed to eat vegetables"? Would you complain, or would you tell people who complain "what is wrong with there being a form of authority in a society"?
"Secondly, do you consider yourself mature enough to be totally unaffected by something that you experience, see or hear, and consequently, do you think that the rest of the Maltese nation is as mature?".
Yes and yes. We've grown up on violent films. Most of us are not violent, and I don't see a call on a ban on most hollywood movies.
K. Pullicino
Jul 14th 2010, 12:50
@P. Borg: "kullhadd jghid li jrid minghajr ma jkun responsabli ta li qal"
What? Isn't responsibility one of the major requirements of being an adult?
K. Pullicino
Jul 14th 2010, 13:24
@Kenneth Cassar: I'll ask a few more questions since I've made my argument and I'm only interested in learning more.
"does not imply it is justified in all cases"
In this case why isn't it justified for there to be an authority?
"We've grown up on violent films. Most of us are not violent, and I don't see a call on a ban on most hollywood movies."
So, why does an artist produce a work of art, then? I'm sure it's not simply to waste his time painting a pretty painting or writing a few funny lines. Should we accept art unquestioningly and herald them all as being progressive and beneficial to our society? I'm not talking specifically about violent movies but art in general.
Ramon Casha
Jul 14th 2010, 13:40
@K Pullicino: I have no problem with there being an authority in society, but not in all matters. I consider myself at least as mature as the persons who are taking the decisions not to let me watch certain plays, or read certain articles, and probably less likely to be affected by them. The rest of the Maltese nation will have to decide individually for itself, but I consider the censors to be among the least mature, since they are "shocked" enough to ban the material in question.
T. BORG
Jul 14th 2010, 09:42
DHALNA FL-EWROPA U FI DRITTIJIET MORNA LURA. ZDIEDU IT-TAXXI U L-GHOLI TAL-HAJJA BLA KONTROL SPECJALMENT FIL-MEDICINI. KIEN AHJAR HARRAXNA U RESSAQNA LIL MIN QED JISRAQ LILL-POPLU.
E. Psaila
Jul 14th 2010, 09:33
can this front explain what art or point does the realta article have? it's just disgusting.
Miguel Micallef
Jul 14th 2010, 09:42
Disgusting is the fact that you can't see a woman's breast without demanding prison time, sir.
J Farrugia
Jul 14th 2010, 10:59
only perverts demand to see women's breasts. Beauty is one thing, perversity is another. A criminal offence.
CZARB
Jul 14th 2010, 13:09
We should introduce the inquisition to protect us. Am I right J Farrugia?
Miguel Micallef
Jul 14th 2010, 13:30
There's a difference between demanding, and having no problem seeing. I never demanded.. You, on the other hand, have problems seeing. And you are also saying that women's breasts are a criminal offense.
Good luck with your life, you seriously need it.