Andy Farrugia

Feb 11th, 16:05

So, Dr Owen Bonnici MP wants a genuine apology to the artistic community! Intriguing!

Angus Black

Feb 11th, 15:48

I hope that the spokesmen for the Labour Party and AD have both had the opportunity of reading the said short story. If they have and still expect some sort of apology from whoever they seem to target, then their moral standards are either very low or they have none at all.

The story should at least annoy anyone with basic moral standards and who does not relish a piece of 'literature' whose every other sentence was laced with foul language and swear words. I am no prude but the repetition of the same foul expressions and the debasing of women was by no stretch of imagination, funny, but rather revolting.

The story did not contain any shred of a redeeming factor and the author should have been embarrassed by his writing. He was only acquitted because 'obscenity' was not defined clearly enough in the eyes of the law.

joseph saliba

Feb 11th, 11:35

I am in favour of freedom of expression, and laws that encourage artistic initiatives but did not find even one instance where the Prime Minister pronounced himself against editor and writer mentioned above. Besides freedom of expression means everyone (including the prime minister) have got a right to speak his mind.

David Buttigieg

Feb 11th, 11:22

Labour still think that the Prime Minister and the government should have a say in who get's prosecuted and who doesn't. In democracies it's the police\AG who decide, and Government has no say whatsoever.

I'm not surprised labour think this way though, after all that was their modus operandi during those terrible 16 years, and yet again they keep proving that they haven't changed a bit!

Victor Zammit

Feb 11th, 11:10

Article 208 of the Criminal Code prohibits pornography and obscenity. The Court in this case did not find against Article 208 (prohibition of pornography and obscenity), nor did it condone pornography or obscenities, but found in favour of Mark Camilleri and Alex Vella Gera in that that that article could not stand against them in the circumstances: “Mr Justice David Scicluna said in his judgement that the court had in fact appreciated the evidence correctly and upheld the reasoning that the law did not provide a clear definition of what was obscene and that the prosecution did not provide enough evidence to show how the story offended public morals” (The Times, 9.2.2012). Indeed there is no definition across the board of what is obscene – that may be difficult to come by or may not be exhaustive (anything that is done or said "behind the scenes” (‘ob scena’). But there are single instances in the Criminal Code of particular obscenities. In this case it seems they did not fit the case.

John Schembri

Feb 11th, 10:09

Where can we read this literary masterpiece? Can the Times publish a link?

Can Dr Owen Bonnici ,now publicly read Vella Gera’s work of art?
The last time I saw him on TV he stammered when asked to read such a simple innocent bedtime story.

When he does that the people will decide wether anyone owes an apology.

J. Mifsud

Feb 11th, 09:19

What has SDM got to say now. SDM officials were the ones who reported to matter to the rector, these should have been on the students' side, it seems that there is too much political agendas in University, since Realta is a leftist newspaper the Demokristjani came out against it. SHAME!