The University Students’ Council has criticised the Attorney General’s appeal against the acquittal of a student charged with publishing an explicit short story in his newspaper Realtà.
Editor Mark Camilleri, 22, was acquitted three weeks ago together with author Alex Vella Gera who wrote the story Li Tkisser Sewwi (Mend What You Break).
When contacted, KSU president Carl Grech said the appeal against Mr Camilleri was “not conducive” to the debate about censorship.
“There is no contention about the fact that a good number of students were offended by the material distributed on campus.” However, he added, if this case was going to be interpreted in terms of the common good and what society considered obscene, “KSU does not think it is the ideal forum where both these issues can be discussed and where any necessary amendments to the relevant laws can be proposed”.
The council called for “more level-headedness” in the debate, in the interest of all stakeholders.
The Association of Performing Arts Practitioners expressed deep concern at the AG’s decision to appeal and felt the reasons given were “unsatisfactory and flimsy”. It said what was happening appeared to be “another assault on artists’ freedom of expression” and hoped common sense would prevail.
In his appeal, Attorney General Peter Grech said the “obscene” story disregarded the common good. “The author must realise... there is God above everything and everyone – God, who is definitely bigger than the biggest ego of the most celebrated authors.”
A “disappointed” education professor, Kenneth Wain, who had defended the author in court, said he did not feel the AG had a case. He found it worrying that the concept of the common good was being used in this context and related the argumentation of the AG to the divorce debate.
“It is a sign of what is happening in our society today: the conservative, traditionalist mentality against the mentality of people who want to change things and bring in more freedom.”
He pointed out that if the appeals court upheld the AG’s claims, the case would most probably go to the European Court of Human Rights, which would be “very bad publicity” for Malta.
Rev. Prof. Saviour Chircop, dean of the Faculty of Media and Knowledge Sciences, asked whether the court’s first judgment would open the floodgates to an “unmanageable situation of unrestrained behaviour” in a highly volatile and polarised Maltese society, especially when it comes to politics. “Obviously, freedom of expression is to be given appropriate weight in the case.
However, this right of expression is to be balanced against other rights within the larger societal good.”
The University rector is refusing to comment on the case until a final decision is made.