Seventy years ago the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. One of its victims was 18-year old Nakamura. Pedro Arrupe looked for her amid the scene of harrowing destruction and the stench surrounding the remains of her house.
Arrupe, later to become father general of the Jesuits, had baptized her three years earlier, and the faith became life to her. He found her stretched out on the remains of a table, covered by a few burnt rags, each of her limbs being one unrelenting wound exuding pus.
Amid her excruciating pain and agony, she asked for one thing: the Eucharist. She died shortly after having her last wish fulfilled. The longing in her eyes in making this request impressed Arrupe for the rest of his life.
This story makes a great contrast with an experience I recently had. A comedian on stage saw it fit to make jokes by poking fun at the Eucharist. Probably the comedian thought of it as ‘the shape of things to come’ here in Malta, as laws on offensive material are being relaxed. A believer does not have to be a Nakamura to feel something very dear has come under wanton attack.
The present moves are for both pornography and anti-religious material to be much less subject to legal limit. In his article ‘Artistic censorship reforms’ (August 12), Andrew Sciberras defended Bill 113, which he himself had a role in drafting, and which deals with pornography though, it seems, not with anti-religious material.
Drawing a line between what is to be permitted and what is not in sexually-related matters can be very tricky. It conjures up pictures in one’s mind of a lady tugging this way and that at her swimsuit before appearing before the gentlemen of the jury for them to judge whether her attire on the beach was objectionable. With standards being a moving target, those who are given the role to draw a line often feel themselves playing a losing game.
Sciberras defends “the basic principle that no person should face criminal punishment over subjective evaluations on what may be deemed ‘obscene’ or what may have a ‘tendency to corrupt’. Rather, the purpose of criminal law should be, wherever possible, to impose punishment after forensic and objective proof of harm that is beyond reasonable doubt”.
That artists should have a large measure of liberty of expression is an observation I deeply agree with. That a show should be banned only after forensic proof of harm actually done, on the other hand, is like saying that all pharmaceutical products should be licensed until it is proved that they have harmed somebody.
In fact, pharmaceutical licence is given only after a strong proof of harmlessness, rather than always given until harm has occurred. Of course, this is too much to ask regarding plays, films, etc. But to consider nothing as harmful and objectionable until it is scientifically proved it has done harm is going too far the other way!
The most vociferous supporters of change are happy wanting to enforce more respect for minorities while being equally happy in wanting to give freedom to insult religions
Popular values (“moral principles”, says Sciberras) change with time. Yes: we thank God the respect for gays and other minorities has become more popularly and legally supported. However, I am not at all happy if free expression means allowing people to be insolent to minorities (or majorities), and to encourage racial bias and bullying of people who are different.
But I cannot escape the distinct impression that the most vociferous supporters of change are happy wanting to enforce more respect for minorities while being equally happy in wanting to give freedom to insult religions. How can people hold such contrary views?
I agree that drawing a line to set acceptability standards in artistic representations is difficult. Yet, courts often have to take the bull by the horns and exercise discretion and draw lines in matters like whether representations to minors were morally acceptable, whether consent in couple sex was free, and so many other areas.
Artistic expression is, like all human activity, moved by many different motivations, including questionable ones. It could become a huge vehicle that careers away, oblivious of the harm in its wake, if it is subject to no brakes. Sciberras admits that he favours drawing a line with ‘revenge porn’. So he is not in principle against brakes.
He defends the Bill by saying the intention in drafting it was not to lay the foundations of a porn industry in Malta or the debasement of women, but to increase artistic freedom as he presents it.
However, it is no use explaining that the intention was to throw away the bath water if the baby will then be thrown away too. We do have babies that are very dear to us, in this society, besides artistic freedom – like the dignity of women, religions and a healthy sexual life.
The law changes in question generally go in a good direction, but they must go back to the drawing board and acquire some brakes in the right places.
Charles Pace is a senior visiting lecturer, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Malta.