I would like to ask some pertinent questions to those who are in favour of the play Stitching.

Would it be mature of a judge to have proof that a play overtly breaches our criminal law and still turn a blind eye to it?

Is it a legal and sound argument to plead for tolerance, just because things that breach criminal law are being tolerated in other circumstances?

Is the theatre not still a public place, even though theatregoers pay for what they are going to watch and can be advised of the content beforehand?

My answer is clear: fake arguments are groundless at law, even if they come out of a lawyer's mouth.

We speak of competent lawyers but some do not give this impression. Instead of arguing in a legal way, they are legally blinded by their emotions.

Instead of applying the law to Stitching, they are blindly trying to stitch and stretch the law to accommodate their emotions.