Tuesday, 3rd February 2009
Are we on the eve of the death of democracy?
I contributed my two euro cents worth in the discussion of the play called Stitching through my article in The Sunday Times (February 1). Then I thought interest had waned.
But on Tuesday I changed my mind after I read the report in The Times of the judicial protest that the producers filed against the Board of Classification. I will reproduce verbatim a quote from the judicial protest which is printed The Times (4 February, 2009 p. 4).
“On a point of principle, it is unacceptable in a European and democratic society …. for this play to be prohibited, because in its full context it is not libellous, obscene, defamatory, and does not incite racial hatred or violence. It is just a shocking play aimed at an adult audience.”
If that statement does not constitute a retreat from the pompous position that the producers took I don’t know what a retreat is. The producers were saying that the banning of the play per se was heralding the end of democracy!!!! They referred to the democratic crisis that Malta went through in the Eighties saying that they fought for democracy then and will fight for it now. The producers and their supporters were saying that there should not be any banning of any play. Artists are untouchable, you see stupid!
A judicial protest that logically follows from this original position should have read as follows:
“On a point of principle, it is unacceptable in a European and democratic society …. for a play to be prohibited.”
Period. Nothing more. Nothing less. The “point of principle” is that there should be no censorship.
But the judicial protest adds important conditions to the original position of the producers. The banning is unacceptable because the play is not libellous, obscene, defamatory, and does not incite racial hatred or violence. The logical conclusion from this new position of the producers is that it would be acceptable to prohibit the play if it were found to be libellous, obscene, defamatory, and does not incite racial hatred or violence.
If The Times is quoting the producers correctly, then my reading of the situation is the following: the producers are now accepting the principle of prohibiting a play but are not accepting the judgement made by the Board that this play is guilty of the offences that make prohibiting acceptable. Consequently if someone proves that the play is libellous etc they would have no problem with its banning.
This is a different ball game altogether.
The present position of the producers – if they are correctly quoted by The Times – opens the debate in another direction as well. Given than now censorship is accepted in principle and that the debate is only on the grounds justifying it, I think it is legitimate to add to or subtract from the list given by the producers.
For your discussion and comments I will mention three different grounds that could possibly justify the banning of the play.
- A play can be banned because it is blasphemous.
Do you think that this quote from the play qualifies as a possible ground for banning it?
“Stu: So if you are a whore, I can hire you again; can’t I?
… pause …
What about Sunday?
Abby: Sunday’s the Lord’s day.
Stu: ***** (I interpret: Stu used the “F” word in direct reference to God.)
2. A play can be banned because it shows grave disrespect to the victims of the Holocaust.
In another scene Stu says that the first time he masturbated was while looking at “naked women in a line, waiting to go into a gas chamber.” He gives other details which I will skip since because of their crudeness.
Isn’t this awful? Isn’t this utterly obscene?
3. A play can be banned because it shows gross bad taste and makes the most indecent proposals.
This time it is Abby’s turn to shock. Don’t read if you don’t want to be shocked.
“Abby. I’d like us to hurt someone together. I’d like us to abduct a child and f*** it and burn it and kill it.”
She continues saying that she would like to see Stu sexually abuse (I have to paraphrase as the details in the script are too graphic to reproduce here even if I use a lot of asterisks.) the mothers of these murdered children while she films the abuse. And she continues:
“Abby: and then we could put the films on the web and sell them.”
How on earth can anyone describe the banning of such rubbish as a crime against democracy?
Come on pull the other.
Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.
RSS
Comments
"The Maltese media regulation is predominantly characterised by a traditional command and control approach taken by the state and expressed by means of legislation."
This is how an official interim report drafted in Hamburg looks at our system. We can snub it as a pseudo-intellectual claim and perhaps even argue that our system is endemic and should be respected as such. But seeing the rest of Europe thinking otherwise, putting it in a different perspective, should at least make you think outside an island environment, look at traditional regulation vis-a-vis globalisation. The same report concludes:
"Moreover, traditional regulation does not seem to stimulate creative activities
effectively. Initiatives, innovation and commitment cannot be imposed by law
Given that modern regulation has to rely on co-operation with the objects of
regulation to achieve its objectives, this is becoming another significant factor."
This was one of the conclusions:
"It cannot and should not be the task of conventional government regulations to guarantee that content is in line with the cultural needs of our society. However, Member States and the European Union, together with industry and civil society, can promote structures for more trust in content and foster initiatives that can serve as an example."
If such statements are being made towards the New Media re content control, surely one hopefully understands that the communicative medium of theatre went through that process quite a few years ago, considering it's been around for more than a few hundred years. Such statements are suggesting that countries should move away from the concept of restricting and instead promote structures and initiatives like Media Literacy which involve more than just a workbook-based syllabus.
Part [ii]
The invasive nature of the new media cannot be compared to the theatre experience. You
can't blame the bewilderment of people when it's being suggested that national regulatory authorities might not be feasible even for such a forceful medium as the TV / Internet, let alone regulating theatre which involves a paid decision, in the case argued - an adult (yra person over 18yrs) !
Part [i]
Omission was made in the light of "The regulation of audiovisual media services" - Recommendation 1855 (2009) - Provisional Edition of the Assembly debate on 27 Jan'09 (3rd Sitting) -Council Of Europe, which suggests:
"The viewer, listener or reader of new audiovisual media services is having to bear greater responsibility for the content he or she may select and potentially even contribute to, while content regulation through national regulatory authorities is becoming less feasible. National legislators are, therefore, compelled to review their existing regulation and set up new means for achieving their objectives regarding audiovisual media policy, with the latter objectives still remaining valid also in the new media environment.
The Assembly invites the ministers participating in the Council of Europe’s Ministerial Conference on the Media and New Communication Services (Reykjavik, May 2009) to express their continued support for:
regulating their audiovisual media policies nationally as part of their general cultural policies, while ensuring international co-operation and respecting the right to freedom of information through audiovisual media services under under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights"
Now that is some kindness I wasn’t looking for!
Your overtures remind me of the stampede in The Lion King…so much finesse!
If you do not know what I am talking about...have a look…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-42ek85G4&feature=related
I'm more of the Lady and the Tramp kind of gal... and no, before your fingers go to the keyboard. I am not issuing an invite for a spaghetti and meatballs dinner next Saturday. Sorry :)
Sensationalism is what sells and I suppose ‘Stitching’ promises much more than the tidbit we have been given to savour. I can imagine the field day the viewers will be having, granted that they are the type who can stomach it. From all the publicity it has been given in all media, no one is going in to watch it without knowing what to expect. May all the hardened theatergoers (It it gets to be performed) come away untarnished from the experience.
So much for the ‘warm and fuzzy’ (to use Victoria’s words) feelings these rosy Valentine’s days are promising.
Imagine if it were staged on the 14th! What a lovely, loving treat for your loved one.
Jessica
Let me quote all article 10 for your consideration:
ARTICLE 10
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Imnalla you don't know about KC!
It's the typical maltese sunday afternoon television series, ultra-light entertainment, for all the wrong reasons!
As regards chickens...are you suggesting valentine's dinner? *wink wink nudge nudge* =0P
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN Treaty) recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights : "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
So frankly speaking the whole argument is more directed to a public authority like the Board of Film and Stage Classification (http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/bodies/boards/film.asp) rather to what you think. Both of us, on different ends of this argument are ranting about it as citizens.
Qualifying it from your viewpoint as stupid and obscene is your right which you exercised freely. I beg to differ. Whatever you choose to call me or judge me upon my choice doesn't really bother or effect me. Having an authority which takes the liberty to pass that judgement though makes me question. I'm not inciting anarchy but I'm exercising my right to question an authority that was appointed by another Public Authority which us Maltese elected. They are no fallible or absolute authority.
@ Franco Rizzo
Pardon my vacuous blondness but who or what is KC? I wracked my pretty little brains to come up with something but the only one I could come up with is missing a letter and it has to do with chickens...(I hope it does not reflect my brain)
Please be kind when you reply to me for we want to keep the love going... :)
Ah all is right with the world. Franco is back!
@ Jennifer Soames
re love messages...it's the silly season with Valentines round the corner...even the Times caught the lurrve bug.
I still need to take some Rennies after accessing this portal...what's with all the pink and red on the homepage eh, Ed?
Hi Jennifer,
glad to have you back. If you have caught up with the general trend of developments, you must be aware of how each and every one of us respond to the blog by Fr. Joe Borg. So maybe we have trashed it out long enough and I am sure you realize that everyone still stands with his/her opinion.
About the love messages between the contributors, it’s no cause for alarm. There will not be any unwarranted repercussions. Rest assured no Valentine cards will be exchanged. However I do wish everyone a very happy Valentine’s day – four days too early I know.
XXX
To all
Jessica
Love messages are sprouting because valentine's day is around the corner
I honestly think this is a play should not be allowed in our theatre for two reasons: one, it is obscene and two, it is incredibly stupid - the second reason being just as important as the first.
In Malta we need to censor stuff that is being seen/heard/read by the public not for just for obscenity but for STUPIDIITY. God knows we have enough of it already, why show it up in our theatre? It's nothing to be proud of.
Also, about this blog - i haven't been reading it for several days but what's this i find? love messages between the contributors? is this allowed?
This 'discussion-of-sorts' between Jessica, Victoria and myself is just the kind of point I always wish to make. If you go over all the blogs in this newspaper, you see so much anger, so much heated exchanges, so much seriousness and you rarely encounter jokes in good taste, you rarely meet people joking with each other, taking the mickey out of each other as has just happened here.
We are a nation of prats ... myself first and foremost. A nation of people who take life too seriously. A nation of people who think that civilisation started with them and is ending with them. And the same with religion.
Countries and societies abroad have gone through what Malta is trying to fend off from going through now, ages ago! It's useless trying to stop time in our islands - naturally, time will tick away as is wont and traditions will give way to others.
You never cease to amaze me...first by your love declaration of love to Jessica and then by your admission on the method you use to post your comments...how do you manage to jump up and down while typing? I just tried it but it's impossible... but one thing did happen: my tongue got dislodged from my cheek. So....I stopped reading Mills & Boon years and years ago...I don't want to read it here :)
So please revert to the Franco we got used to, even if your comments were few and far between at least they were vibrant and challenging. Warm and fuzzy Franco does not suit you. I don't expect you to throw me hugs and kisses for this hehe
As for the play, yes it is stark and crude. I just read a review about the Kate Winslet film The Reader on Slate.com and it really set me thinking. It's how there's a growing number of people in the film industry who are trying to "exculpate Nazi-era Germans from knowing complicity in the Final Solution" through sympathetic portrayals of Nazis. Worth a read.
http://www.slate.com/id/2210804/
Anyway, not that I agree with Joe Borg or Jessica on this one - once again, i reiterate that freedom of expression should allow this play to go on. Unfortunately, much harm has been done and a lot of publicity has been given to said play. But in today's world, there is no place for Censorship and that paraphernalia. I agree with Classification, but not Censorship. And I rest my point on this discussion, thank you.
'OUR Franco?' I rarely contribute in this blog, for certain reasons, imagine being YOUR Franco. :-)
(Docile? Moi???? Never!!! heheh!)
Look at other blogs to see others in a cat-and-dog heated discussion that ends in sheer name-calling, personal vindictives, etc...
That's nice! :-)))
Thank you
Jessica
Hi Franco,
Got your message loud and clear! About one thing we are certainly in agreement though: “Regarding Stitching, I don't care about that play, if what Joe Borg says is true, I find it nauseating” (your quote)
Let us just agree that we both have a different point of view, and call it quits. But don’t you think that a challenge, every now and then, adds spice to the commentaries? Rather than ‘Pontificate’, I rise to the challenge.
Glad there is no bad blood between us, however.
Goodnight!
Jessica
With all the ground mankind has covered over the years since the old Testament, will you have us revert back to those times just to prove a point?
As an example: In Schindler's List there were some main characters who were portrayed as taking pleasure in murdering, abusing and torturing Jews. However the main aim of the message was far from that.
@Jessica DeBattista - next thing you'll be posting your cv ! No one asked you to testify whether you're an artist or not.
"At that time Menahem...attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women." 2Kings 15:16.
"as [Elisha] was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them." 2Kings 2:23-24.
(7) They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man...(15) "Have you allowed all the women to live?" [Moses] asked them. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31.
There's more, a lot more. So, what were you saying about material that should be banned due to racial hatred or violence?
Dear Franco,
To your statement - “I stand by what I said”. I can only say that I have no quarrel with that.
As regards the free publicity, I hope you realize that I have you to thank.
What I do not understand is your antagonism towards, me when I don't even know you. (Or should I know who you are?)
Jessica
And as regards the rest, please spare us the free publicity.
I will have you know that there are different types of artists. There are the serious artists, and then there are the ‘menefreghisti’. I prefer to associate myself with the former.
And dear Franco, about the second question: the need will not arise, for you will never have me paint a nude that is in any way objectionable. You can access my website: www.jessicart.com and have a look at my nudes and I dare you to find one that you would have me burn.
If out of spite you manage to single out one, you can be sure that I will not burn it for you, only because I know that your intention is not genuine.
And by the way, I do exercise ‘freedom of expression’ as you can see in all the categories and various media that I employ. (‘Freedom of expression’ means that you can express yourself the way that is most congenial to you. Unfortunately that phrase is very often abused and that is why some art has ended in such a sorry state.)
P.S. My invitation from the post in the previous blog still stands. It’s up to you.
There is something called 'freedom of expression' which also found in every form of art, as you well know. What if you had to paint a picture of a woman with a detailed emphasis of a particular part of her body? And found that a few people are objecting to it and are demanding that it be burnt, ... how would you feel about it? Be careful how you answer, dear lady, because if you claim that they are right, then I am sorry, but to me, you are no professional artist. But I know you are!
But take a curious 18 year old (or anybody else for that matter) who is seeing the play for the very first time, and who sticks through it for the simple reason that he does not want to lose face and leave, this would be tantamount to an abuse on his emotions.
Shouldn’t we come away from seeing anything that has to do with art, enriched by the experience? Not everybody is mature enough to be able to take so much filth.
No wonder the world is in such a sorry state!!!
The second point is that a play, film or other material often needs to represent a scenario which includes something illegal. If we could not represent something illegal in such productions, then there would be no thrillers because they often include a murder. Romeo and Juliet could be interpreted as representing the corruption of a minor. Oliver Twist would be banned for displaying child labour, children forced to commit crimes, and murder.
Whether this play is "rubbish" is a matter of taste. I find most of Picasso's paintings to be rubbish but that doesn't stop people for paying mountains of money for them, nor would I want to prevent them.
Upon reading the quotations the first time, I experienced SHOCK.
Upon reading the quotations the second time, I experienced DISGUST.
Upon reading the quotation the third time, I experienced ANGER.
Upon reading the quotation the fourth time, I experienced DISDAIN.
Upon reading the quotation the fifth time, I experienced ENNUIE.
Upon reading the quotation the sixth time, I experienced NOTHING.
Familiarity with anything - gruesome as gruesome it can be - can breed ACCEPTANCE.
This is the curse of human nature. Keep hammering on susceptible minds and in the end you can get away with anything.
But it can work both ways of course!!! Perseverance is the key.
Most people do not care half a cent about the law because if they did I would not meet with blasphemy all day long. I am not paying an entrance fee to hear all this. I am subjected to all this without paying anything at all.
On my TV I watch Palestinians being tortured by those who should know better. I watch Israeli people suffering too because they are not happy with the situation. I watch pro-abortion demonstrations. I read about Maltese who go abroad for having an abortion.
Therefore I am not 100% convinced that this play is banned for paying theatre goers who know what they are paying for when watching this play.
I definitely do not condone the contents of the play.
I can't believe what I'm hearing. Am I behaving like the worst kind of animal? Have you seen a general tendency of atheists to behave like animals? Where do you get this nonsense from?
Dr. Saliba:
Blasphemy a blight on civilised society? No, it's the blasphemy laws that is the blight. Again, look around on nations which are enforcing blasphemy laws and countries that are not and you will easily see that prosperity, progress and happiness is in general found in the latter.
having said this, censorship should never be a tool in the hand of the church or any other organisation (as was in the past) to eliminate anything it does not want the public to learn to explore. This should be a public service function, as empowered by law and in my opinion should be devoid of any other socio-religious representation.
Dr. John Consigtlio, Birkirkara
It was you yourself who classified blasphemy as a crime, exactly "a victimless crime".
I object to blasphemy first of all against my Christian God but also against all other versions in other religions especially monotheistic faiths. I object out of respect to the religious convictions of others. And before you ask me, the answer is NO, I do not accept the cult of filthy obscenity as some sort of religion at all.
The blasphemer, as a victim of his own blasphemy, is of great concern to me, and to most civilised persons, because blasphemy demeans not only him and those who condone his blasphemy, but because it is a blight on civilised society.
Just for the record: obscenities in whatever and whichever way they occur, I shun like the plague.
If you are looking for a clear cut answer from me, I can tell you that I have no qualms in declaring that had I had anything to do with the Board of Classification I would have banned the production. But as I said, it is not up to me and I believe that the Judges’ decision should be final.
Case Closed.
May I also add that you have a slight misunderstanding of my assertion. I don't think blasphemy should be a crime AT ALL. I can't understand how it can be labelled as such in any modern democracy. Unless God is willing to show up in a court of law and testify himself, I think we should refrain from doing that job for him.
Yes I very much understood what you were arguing for, I simply don't agree. As I said, who decides what is blasphemy? What god do you have to insult to blaspheme? Any? The Abrahamic God? Your God?
If the blasphemer becomes a victim of his own blasphemy, what is that to you? If the people seeing the show also wants to be victims, is that not their choice. Once again it shows how certain people can't allow consenting adults the freedom to act and behave according to their own will, in matters where no non-consenting people are being affected.
I countered your assertion that while accepting that blasphemy is a crime it is not so serious after all because it does not create victims. I pointed out that the blasphemer lowers himself in his own self esteem and in the esteem of his fellow men and thus the blasphemer becomes a victim of his own blasphemy!
You have all the right in the world to express your view of the play, but the matter of question was whether to censor or not, which I find is highly undemocratic in this case.
I'm not set to denigrating the cathedral, I simply don't like it. I expressed my opinion on it, something I'm sure you don't deny me.
You say you leave it to more able bodies, but who says their standards are correct? In this case they have even failed to give an explanation to their judgement.
In regards to your list of obscenities I can't see what the problem is, except in the case of the fish, which I find being a mindless killing. The rest are voluntary to watch, voluntary to take part in and voluntarily performed. I would most likely choose not to watch them, as I'm sure you would, so I fail to see what the problem is.
Bad taste is not - and shoult not be - illegal.
THANK YOU
I will simply ask those who want to produce and act in this play whether this is the best way of demonstrating their artistic talents and love for the theatre and whether this is the best they can offer to normal theatregoers. If plays of the "Stitching" type are the only ones which fill theatres then we are a truly sick society.
The author of "Stitching" himself once he built a reputation on the fringe (the sex and gore movement is now virtually passe) is now trying hard to move to the mainstream of playrighting in the same way that starlets and flick strippers try hard to forget their initial exhibitions and move at the first opportunity to serious acting roles.
Part 2
How would you feel at the following so called “works of art”?
Andres Serrano immersed a crucifix in a jar of his own urine (“Piss Christ”…get it?). For other “art works” he mixed pig’s blood with milk, and took pictures of his own ejaculations,
Chris Offili got rich decorating the Virgin Mary with both feces and cut-outs from porn magazines.
Danish artist Marco Evaristti’s exhibit included a row of ten blenders, each containing a live goldfish, and each capable of being turned on, depending upon the viewer’s whim.
“Never mind dead fish. A student taking classes in the “new genres” department of the San Francisco Art Institute recently satisfied one of his course requirements by blindfolding and gagging a volunteer, having sex with him, defecating, then giving and receiving an enema, all on an open-air stage in the company of other class members, two professors, and passersby. “Artist” Jonathan Yegge explained that his “piece” was “an exploration of the notion of the master-slave dialectic in Hegel.” When the volunteer later complained, the artist stated “I’m just shocked and appalled that you can’t do certain things in art school.” - (Shocking Art) (When ART becomes inhuman)
Part 1
If you read through my posts, at no point do the words ‘censor’
or ‘banning’ come into my writing. I leave the decision to more able persons who most certainly know their job and I guarantee you that I would be the first to abide by their decision. But I believe I have a right to express my views regarding the play ‘Stitching’.
I do not need to go once again into the merits of St. John’s co-Cathedral cause I find it futile discussing it with somebody who is so set on denigrating it.
By way of stressing your point, you ask me to go to a video store and pick up some of the objectionable material you mention.
I have no intention of doing such a thing. I am living in a world with both my eyes open. I know what goes on - and what I don’t know, I can imagine.
In my line of business I am faced with probably far worse so called “works of art”. The Internet is a handy tool to keep me adjourned with what goes on in the world of art.
"I dispose of my rubbish in a covered container, for the Scammel to collect, and not spread it on my doorstep for everyone to enjoy."
Noone has spread this play on your doorstep. It's something you actually have to leave your house for, travel a short bit, find parking and, as the icing of the cake, you have to pay for it. If you think you would have gone through that ordeal in case it wasn't censored, you do suffer from some very weird obsessions.
Peter Bonello:
As one of the objections to it was blasphemy, it's kinda hard not to drag the Church into it. It has nothing to do about being hip and trendy, obscenity have been around for a loooong time.
I find them gruesome to the highest degree. More than anything due to children being taken on tours through this horrific place. A church monumenting death so blatently is not a place for me, hence I stay away from it. I can easily appreciate the historical value of the place, but I still find it horrific.
Again, you have to put things in context, something none of us here can do with the play mentioned. I'll be honest, I have no intention of watching said play, my objection is simply to the censorship which, from what I've read so far, is baseless. Go to a video store and you will find a dozen movies with far worse content. Go to a record store, buy a death metal album, or the latest Marilyn Manson and you will find vulgarity unrivaled (and probably envied) by the producers. You may or may not like the content in question, but by what right do you censor it?
So the victim is the perpetrator? Am I hearing you right? You argue in the positive for laws making victims perpetrators, or rather perpetrators victims. My main point was that you can make pretty much anything into blasphemy and it all depends on which God you want to defend, making it an untennable position.
I can't understand why people think it's so hip and trendy to be tolerant of such rubbish. Also, when people try to defend the indefensible they find a way of attacking the Church...
I dispose of my rubbish in a covered container, for the Scammel to collect, and not spread it on my doorstep for everyone to enjoy.
Censorship and banning are two different things.
I am still waiting for comments by the Commissioner for Childen regarding 'Stitching''s total disrespect to child victims of violence.
Evil rules when the good do nothing.
Part 2
As to the martyrdom scene that you mention: once again you have to put the work in its historical context. It is the Baroque (anti reformation art) that is in question here. There is not enough space to go into the history of the time. But suffice it to say that Baroque art was meant to show the people that the martyred saints had been ready to die for their faith.
I wonder how you can even think of comparing the above, with the pure trash we have been invited to dwell upon and to give our opinion about.
P.S I had meant to give this week a break because I tend to get carried away and write too much, but I could not let this pass and I had to voice my opinion. I will do my best to curb my enthusiasm and not contribute to this week’s blog again.
Part one:
Can you specify what you find so objectionable in the paintings in St. John’s Co-Cathedral ? Are you alluding to the works by Mattia Preti which happen to be executed in such good taste?
Or is it the different styles of the relief sculptures that upholster the piers which support the barrel vaulted ceiling? Or maybe it is the exuberant Baroque, or in certain cases the more restrained Neo-Classical sculpture in the various chapels of the Langues, that you find so grotesque?
Or is it the tombstones that you find out of place - but what is so strange as having people buried in a church? (a sacred place).
I would advise you to inform yourself about the history of the cathedral and its historical context, which might help you to view such works with a fresh eye.
Do I get you right? You object to disrespect being shown to holocaust victims but not to God . And why? Because He can look after Himself.
Contrary to what you claim, there is a victim of blasphemy and that victim is the blasphemer himself, his self respect and the respect of anyone who applauds him!
In your ineffable judgement the artistic treasures in St John's and our other churches are in horrific bad taste but you condescend to allow us to enjoy them as a counterweight to the affascination for the obscenities of "Stitches"!
De gustibus non est discutandum!
3. Showing of bad taste etc
Complete rubbish. Bad taste is not grounds for censorship. If so we would, again, have to decide who gets to choose what is good and bad taste. Personally it makes me sick going into a place like St John's Co-Cathedral and seeing the horrific paintings, the over-use of grotesque decorations and the floor decorated with martyrs graves. I get the same feeling seeing the quaint little chappel in Mdina with the large painting of a woman having her breast cut off by a gruesome man. Should we ban those as well? My opinion, despite how I feel about them, is that of course we shouldn't ban them. Censorship, unless in cases of slander, lies and grave disrespect to a race or people is an exercise in futility.
To take your points in order.
1. Being blasphemous
Well, as my personal opinion is that blasphemy is a victimless crime, I suppose it's hard for me to comment. What I can't understand is why you feel the need to defend your God. Being omnipotent and all that should allow him to defend himself. Also, who decides what is blasphemous and to which God? Should we show all gods the same respect, or only the Abrahamic God? The reference you made in the play is one of the most common Maltese curses. Should we start throwing people in jail everytime we hear it?
2. Grave disrespect to holocaust victims
This is the one point I can agree upon. Saying that though, the context is of grave importance. You could argue that some of the depictions in Schindler's List is disrespectful, but the purpose is to create awareness and disgust over the actions. Whether this is the case in this play is beyond me.
Your apology to 'Stiching' is synonymous to an apology to Nazi art.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barely one day into the Edinburgh festival, audiences known for their cast-iron stomachs have staged their first walkouts on grounds of taste.
People left Stitching, a new play by the Scottish writer Anthony Neilson that describes a man masturbating over pictures of women being herded into a gas chamber in Auschwitz. A character fantasises about re-enacting the Moors murders, filming her partner sexually abusing the victims' mothers and putting the footage on the web. She mutilates and stitches up her vagina to the strains of "We will stitch it" from the soundtrack to the children's TV programme Bagpuss.
-The Jews.
-Child victims of dastartly violence. (the moor murders) - What would the Commissioner for Children say regarding this? Any comments forthcoming?
-Montheistic religions and probably all religions.
-Good taste.
-Humanity itself.
'Stiching' is to art what nazism is to democracy
He also has the gall to term other people racist and intolerable to boot on anything from their concern on illegal immigration to their political beliefs.
Many thanks for your quotations from "Stitching".
I am convinced that the controversy about this and similar obscene "works of art" is contrived with the intention of whipping up curiosity and concealed free publicity whetting the appetite of curious experimenters and surreptitiously promoting the sale of the offending article. On principle, I do not buy such literature and I do not buy tickets for such plays because it makes me sick to realise that I would be contributing financially to such blatant obscenity. Unfortunately that makes me subject to the criticism of not having seen the play or read the book.
Thank you once more for freeing me from impalement on the horns of that dilemma.
There is no provision for a sane jury to determine whether the play is fit for human consumption or not.
This article raises some interesting points, as it is not quite clear cut: should we allow bad language or allow story-telling of horrers, or prohibit the play altogether?
Which is therefore the greater evil, prohibiting the play, or allowing blasphamy? It is far better to allow for blasphamy than to prohibit. (I would not view this play anyway) The reason being that as time goes by, the state would interfere with matters of individual freedom, and would end up soon, like the inquisition.
Freedom should be the fresh air that we breathe.
Should therefore the court determine at least (like cigarette packets, Do not smoke) signs like: strong blasphamous words used, or something on those lines? Some form of "state parental" guidance!?
George Orwell quote: "Speaking the truth will be a revolutionery act"! Try and question anything on everything, and see what you get?