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.