It’s time for a change, not a resignation

The author was acquitted, so was the editor who carried his short story. Great. But it is not yet a case that all’s well that ends well. The story continues, and it is up to the government to take legislative action to finish it. So far, it goes as follows….

Fourteen years ago, Alex Vella Gera, a young author still cutting his teeth, experimented in social realism with a hugely sexually explicit short story. In it he deliberately constructed a grotesque synthesis of various Maltese male rogue archetypes and the way they looked at sex as a pastime and women as an object of it.

The language of the anti-hero is as sexually explicit and vulgar as could be. The only thing that saved it from going over the top of the gap between too-extreme language and literature was its title, Li Tkisser Sewwi (Repair What You Break). Vella Gera handed the story to Mark Camilleri, editor of University student newspaper Realtà, who accepted it as literature and duly carried it in an edition last year.

Most students and other readers ignored it. Some laughed. Others, it seems, gasped and objected strongly to it and complained to the University rector, Juanito Camilleri, about the fact that the newspaper was circulated on campus. The rector felt he had to refer the matter to the police.

They, in turn, felt justified in taking action against the author and his editor, charging them with breaching article 208 of the Criminal Code dealing with the distribution of pornographic or obscene material.

This is no joke, as the accused were faced with a possible prison sentence of up to six months or a fine of up to €465 if found guilty.

The case was heard by Magistrate Audrey Demicoli in mid-January. A number of literary figures and academics gave evidence refuting that the short story was pornographic.

As far as I could tell, the police, on their part, did not put up witnesses to counter the witnesses of the accused. Their stand, if I go by the reaction to my own evidence, was simply it’s a matter of opinion, without even cross-examining.

In under two months Demicoli delivered judgment, clearing the accused with a sentence that must be a landmark in the quest for freedom of artistic expression. As reported in The Times (March 15) she ruled that the piece did not qualify as obscene and pornographic and that the police had failed to explain how public morality, which changed over time, had been breached.

Demicoli said Playboy magazine was readily available on the bookshelves across Malta and was designed specifically for sexual arousal. On the other hand, a book about sexual education which included pictures or explanations of intimate relationships was not intended to cause sexual arousal.

It was very clear that the monologue used by the author and the style, described as ‘in your face’, was intended to make readers uncomfortable and force contemplation about certain harsh realities of life.

In the court’s opinion, reported The Times, the fact that the piece was shocking and evoked disgust in readers did not qualify as obscene and pornographic.

The magistrate added that the prosecution had brought no evidence to define public morality in Malta and how it had been infringed. The court felt that public morality was something which changed over time, and what offended public morals 20 or 30 years ago did not necessarily do so now as realities changed, including the media.

The magistrate said she also considered that the target audience was University and Junior College students who were mature and exposed to every type of information and different ideas via internet, newspapers, books and so forth.

Given the fact that the students were exposed to such a huge amount of information, as well as the fact that there was no concrete evidence to prove their morality had been offended, one could not say that a crime had been committed, Demicoli ruled.

The decision was welcomed by all those of us who prefer not to be bound up by the cobwebs of time and believe in freedom of artistic expression, within clearly defined broad definitions. It is clear that our legislation does not provide for that. It is far out of date.

One hopes that the police will not appeal against the decision and that the responsible minister will, without too much delay, put forward suitable amendments to the legislation in force or, better still, to come up with a new Bill. Otherwise this whole exercise would not serve its purpose. It would have been a waste of private and public time. One has to wait and see, hopefully not for a Maltese-type eternity.

Meanwhile, while I appreciate the jubilation and sense of satisfaction expressed by the author and editor, I find myself in disagreement with them over a basic point. In effect, they not only expect the rector to apologise but also to resign from his recently refreshed position. I think that’s undiluted rubbish.

The rector could have looked the other way. Yet, once it emerged that he had received specific complaints, he had to take action. That he withdrew the newspaper from circulation on campus was within his remit. That he referred the matter to the police was his duty.

Camilleri and Vella Gera might say next that the Police Commissioner should apologise and resign. I think not. Where legislation is concerned, even were it not so controversial, evolution to comply with changing mores has to be confirmed through changed legislation.

The ball for that to happen now lies in the government’s court. Writers and others should not let the authorities forget that.