Author disregarded common good – AG

Award-winning author Alex Vella Gera disregarded the common good by writing an obscene story in a student newspaper through which he imposed his “individualistic interests” to the detriment of innocent people, according to Attorney General Peter Grech.

“The author must realise that there are other people living with him who do not share his same ideas, preferences or tastes and that there is God above everything and everyone – God, who is definitely bigger than the biggest ego of the most celebrated authors,” Dr Grech, who lectures at University on media law and freedom of expression, wrote in a 32-page appeal document.

Mr Vella Gera and student Mark Camilleri, who published the story on his student newspaper Realta’ last year, were acquitted two weeks ago by Magistrate Audrey Demicoli of offending public morals. But in his appeal, Dr Grech asked for them to be found guilty and sentenced according to law, under which they can face up to six months in prison.

The 1,300-word explicit story entitled Li Tkisser Sewwi (Fix What You Break) was banned from University in October 2009, after Rector Juanito Camilleri filed a police report which led to the arraignment of the accused.

Dr Grech pointed out that the story was thought to be obscene by the highest authorities of the University, including the Rector himself, as well as the police who investigated the case.

A number of literary heavyweights had defended the graphic piece of writing and the court said the prosecution had not come up with enough evidence to prove it offended public morality.

But in a scathing review of the court’s judgment filled with examples from Maltese, British and Italian case law, Dr Grech argues that the magistrate should have relied on her own judgment and not on experts which were not appointed by the court but by the defence.

The court, he said, had to judge whether the text was obscene or pornographic and if so, whether it should be acceptable in the interest of literature, art or for the public good. The prosecution, he said, had shown that this could not possibly be the case.

He claimed that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the story was obscene, pornographic, offended public morals and not in the common good.

“There is no good that the public can get from text like this, except damage to the values and emotions of impressionable minors,” he said.

Dr Grech pointed out that freedom of expression was “far from absolute”. “This right must bow its head completely if the competent court decides that it is in the interest of defence, public security, public order or public morality or decency.”

He added that since this newspaper was distributed for free to students, it was different from a passage in a book found in a library. He said students were faced with this text, without warning, and were deprived of their choice not to read it.

Dr Grech complained about the use of a swearword against the Virgin Mary which should not be acceptable in writing if it is a crime to say the same word in public. He pointed out that the author also used words like “God” not in a religious context or a critical analysis but in a sexual manner.

The readers, which he said were as young as 15 since the newspaper was distributed at Junior College, were given no indication that this was a fictitious story. At no point did the author or the newspaper distance themselves from the thoughts of the main character in the story.

Dr Grech said the story explicitly referred to various sexual acts, “both vaginal and anal”, in grave detail and precision, not only aiming to shock the reader but to appeal to their libido and sexual excitement.

“The writing is manifestly offensive to the female figure and the value of women’s dignity,” he asserted.

Although he agreed that public morality changed over time, Dr Grech made it a point to say that these changes were not necessarily taking the country in the right direction. Just because all sort of information was now widely accessible, did not mean that everything was now acceptable.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika criticised the decision to appeal the court’s judgment and said the country’s laws needed to be modernised.

The Labour Party called this an “obscene” decision by the government, which showed it was in favour of sending writers to the criminal court with the chance of being jailed for writing a completely fictitious story.

AD chairman Michael Briguglio said the Nationalist government was portraying a “confessionalist and ultra-conservative ideology, miles away from what a European society should be all about”.