Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1078260
18 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella MANAGING EDITOR Saviour Balzan Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 FEBRUARY 2019 4 February 2009 'Blasphemous' play contains hardly any blasphemy at all 'STITCHING' – the controversial Adrian Nielsen play recently banned from Malta on grounds of blasphemy – contains hardly any language or scenes which can realistically be defined as 'blasphemous', raising questions about the Censorship Board's official reasons to ban the play in the first place. Instead, there are numerous graphic descrip- tions of sexual acts and situations – some of which would be considered lewd by even the most permissive standards – as well as a frank discussion on the subject of abortion. A Unifaun Theatre Production directed by Chris Gatt, starring Pia Zammit and Mikhail Basmadjian, 'Stitching' was scheduled to open at the St James Cavalier theatre next weekend. But the play did not survive a preliminary reading by the Film and Stage Censorship Board, becoming the first theatre production to be banned in Malta since The Reduced Shakespeare Company's "The Bible - The Complete Work of God", censored in 1998. Producer Adrian Buckle has now initiated court proceedings to overturn this decision, which was originally unaccompanied by any explanation. It was only in its submissions to the Commissioner of Police, and subsequently to the Magistrates' Court, that the Censorship Board cited 'blasphemy' as the cause of offence. Blasphemy is, strictly speaking, illegal in Mal- ta, and as such can always be cited in defence of censorship. But when it comes to 'Stitching', there are only two direct allusions to religion in the entire play: and both of which, while unde- niably vulgar, simply pale to insignificance com- pared to the kind of typical Maltese swearing heard in public on an almost daily basis. The first is when the main character Stu (Bas- madjian) blurts out the words "Jesus F***ing Christ" in a moment of angry shock; the second comes a few moments later, when the same character utters "F*** him", in response to the observation that Sunday is "the Lord's day". This sort of language may be offensive to some, but it is also considered standard fare at the cinema (where, at most, it would earn an '18' certificate), and also on popular television soaps such as The Sopranos, which have been aired on a Maltese digital TV platform. ... But board chairperson, Theresa Friggieri, refused to confirm or deny rumours that the play was banned for presenting a "pro-choice" perspective, on a viscerally divisive subject that remains taboo to this day. "The matter is before the courts now, so I really can't com- ment," an audibly exasperated Mrs Friggieri told MaltaToday over the phone. On his part, producer Adrian Buckle expressed incredulity at the board's decision, arguing that 'Stitching' is the least controversial play to be staged by his theatre company in recent years. MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week It takes courage to challenge the status quo Editorial ''Muscat should stop playing hide and seek. I've known him since Form 2C and I've never known him to be particularly brilliant.'' Maverick former MP Franco Debono takes a dig at Joseph Muscat THROUGHOUT the years, one feature has consistently underpinned Malta's otherwise fast-changing political landscape: the apparent lack of any politicians with enough moral fibre to stand up for what they truly believe in. Time and again, we see situations where there is practically no difference at all be- tween the positions of either side of the House on issues which are otherwise deeply divisive to the rest of the country. It seems that, unless there is a serious risk of losing votes, most (if not all) MPs would much rath- er not voice any private opinion that might run counter to their party's official line… even in areas where they disagree with their party. One example concerns the 'consensus' be- tween Nationalist and Labour MPs to retain spring hunting after EU accession in 2004. When in government, both parties lobbied with the European Commission to secure derogations from EU law… even though it was an open secret that many MPs on both sides disagreed with their party's position on the issue. Similar dilemmas were witnessed within the Labour camp, when former leader Alfred Sant aligned the party against EU member- ship ahead of the 2004 referendum. There were several Labour politicians who privately admitted to serious misgivings about La- bour's EU policy… but very few dared ever to voice their doubts in public. Likewise, several prominent Nationalist MPs were visibly uncomfortable when the PN took up an ill-fated official anti-divorce position in 2011. How many of them raised their concerns with their party leader, at a time when the mistake could still have been avoided? It is a question that must still rankle in the consciences of many well-intentioned Nationalist MPs today. It is regrettable to have to admit that the fundamental missing ingredient, in all these cases, is courage. It takes courage to take a firm stand, even knowing that there may be a heavy political price to pay. But it is also courage that the electorate expects from its representatives in Parliament; especially when it comes to issues and concerns that are close to their heart. Today, we have reached a situation where the same acquiescence underpins practically all issues which have serious environmental implications. Despite constant assertions that the two parties intend to 'get closer to the people' – or slogans to that effect – in many instances, they tend to actively ignore inconvenient issues that are important to their constituents, but not necessarily to themselves. Faced with mounting concerns about quality-of-life issues, Malta's entire political class – with the exception, naturally, of smaller parties and pressure groups – only puts up an impressive wall of silence. It must also be said that, at the core of this malaise, there lies a cultural trait that is by no means unique to Malta (indeed, it is shared by many typical North African and Middle eastern countries), but which is far more pronounced here, than anywhere else in Europe. The unabashed 'cult of the leader', whereby any public contradiction of the 'kap' or 'mexxej' is automatically regarded as an act of 'treason' by the dissenters. This is clearly an unhealthy aspect of our political system. While it is necessary for political parties to impose a certain discipline on their members, such discipline cannot effectively take the form of censorship, or the repression of internal discussion. Political leaders are not, after all, infallible; and MPs are not elected to parliament merely to rub- berstamp everything their leader says. Malta's electorate has, in fact, grown more discerning in this regard. Outspoken politi- cians such as Marlene Farrugia – often de- scribed as a maverick – clearly command a certain respect, if admittedly among a nar- row section of Maltese voters. Just as there is a price to pay for political outspokenness, there are also rewards. People respect politi- cians who have the courage to voice public discontent. Above all, there is also the issue of collec- tive responsibility. Parliamentarians cannot lightly shrug off the repercussions of their actions (or failure to act) on the country as a whole. If their party is committed to an envi- ronmentally unsound policy, and they don't make their concerns heard… they will sooner or later be blamed for the environmental consequences of their silence. One pressing example of this concerns the proposed tunnel linking Malta and Gozo. Talk to several MPs (government and Oppo- sition alike) off the record, and they will free- ly admit that they disagree with this project entirely. They also justifiably fear that their party's position – for both agree, on paper, to the idea – may alienate supporters who, for a host of immensely valid reasons, are likewise opposed. Yet when asked to go public with their con- cerns, they invariably decline… often as not, for fear of being singled out for opprobrium by their own party machinery, and branded 'traitors'. It is clear that this mediocre, ineffective political approach has reached the end of its shelf-life. There are now growing pockets of citizens who can no longer disguise their pro- found dissatisfaction with this state of affairs, and who – as evidenced by the recent past – will not hesitate to pass on that message by means of their vote. It is a warning that politicians disregard at their own risk.