Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1502123
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 JUNE 2023 9 INTERVIEW sequences', for speaking free- ly. By that reasoning: shouldn't there also be limits, to 'free- dom of speech'? Let me clarify what I meant by that, first. Like I said earlier, I am absolutely in favour of full freedom of expression. I've al- ways used the quote most com- monly attributed to Voltaire, which goes: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' But it doesn't mean there are no limitations, whatosever. For one thing, the law already estab- lishes that it is a crime to 'incite hatred or violence'. And as long as the threat of violence is real – as opposed to someone deliber- ately misinterpreting a satirical comment, for his own reasons – I have no problem with that, myself. Elsewhere, the only other ar- ea where I would be perfectly 'OK' [with a law that sets limits on freedom of speech] is where the protection of children is concerned. I agree, for instance, with things like 'parental rat- ings'; and by the same token, I disagree with 'free access to porn'... or anything else, that children need to be protected from. That, however, is as far as it goes. When children grow up into adults: then, as far as I'm concerend, they can watch whatever they like. And they certainly should be free, to say whatever they like... especially, in the context of satire. You're placing a lot of em- phasis on 'satire'; but that is precisely what Manché is chal- lenging, with those police re- ports. He is arguing that those comments were NOT satirical... and he's not alone in thinking that way. Even people general- ly sympathetic to your cause – like Wayne Flask, for instance – have commented to the effect that: what's so 'satirical' about calling someone an 'asshole', anyway? Where does one draw the line, between 'satire', and plain old 'insults'? But it's NOT just about the word 'asshole'. This is precise- ly what I've been saying, all along. It's also about 'who said it'; 'where it was said'; and above all, 'WHY it was said'. Let's face it: Daniel Xuereb didn't just 'call Manché an ass- hole', out of blue... for no reason at all. And if I chose to repeat that comment: it wasn't because I just decided to spontaneously 'insult Gordon Manché'... just like that, for its own sake. I did it, because I wanted to make a statement. I saw that Xuereb, and Bonanno before him, were being taken to court, over what is ultimately their fundamental human right; and I felt I had to take a stand, for the same reason outlined in that famous Voltaire quote, basically. I just thought I'd clarify this, by the way; because there were certain newspaper reports, which made it out as though I simply 'started insulted Gordon Manché', just for the heck of it... Coming back to the word 'ass- hole', however: there was a rea- son why Daniel Xuereb made a joke out of it... and the joke it- self was, in fact, 'satirical'. Now: once again, I don't want to be drawn into a discussion about whether it was 'good satire', or 'bad satire' – that is ultimately up to an audience to decide – but... it was definitely satirical. No doubt about it. Bear in mind that Xuereb was reacting to Manché's own com- ment, that 'anal sex is an abom- ination'. So what Xuereb was really say- ing, with that remark, was that: 'Yes, of course anal sex would be such an 'abomination', to some- one who is 'Malta's biggest ass- hole'. Of course, it would... well, 'bug him'!" And that, by definition, con- stitutes 'satire'. But – and this is where I disagree with Wayne – the issue here is not really whether Xuereb's comment was 'satire', or not; and even less, whether it was a 'good' joke or a 'bad' one. The issue is whether people like Daniel Xuereb - or Matt Bonanno, or myself, or an- yone else, for that matter - actu- ally have the right to say some- thing like that, in this country... or not. Now: to the best of my knowl- edge, in Malta today, you have every right to say whatever you like. You can't be stopped from saying anything; even though you can be taken to court af- terwards, by people who feel 'threatened' or 'insulted'. That, as far as I can see, is how the sit- uation stands, today. So what I'm saying, really, is that: if this loophole exists, that allows people to stifle freedom of expression, even when it clearly takes the form of satire, or artistic expression... then steps have to be taken to ad- dress that loophole. And this is why the satirical context is so important. Let me put it another way: for Gordon Manché to claim he is 'threat- ened', by Daniel Xuereb's joke about him being an 'asshole'... or for him to take Matt Bonan- no seriously, when he suggest- ed that River of Love should be relocated to Bugibba, and 'car- pet-bombed'... ... that's the equivalent of tak- ing a Catholic priest to court, because he told that you will 'go to Hell' unless you change your sinful ways. Or a doctor, when he diagnoses you with a rare condition, and tells you: 'You only have three weeks to live'. Let's face it: under those cir- cumstances, you wouldn't ex- actly file a police report against that doctor, for 'threatening your life', would you? And why not? Because there was a con- text, within which those words were actually said. And when you look at those words, within that specific context... they are obviously not 'threatening', at all. All I'm saying, then, is that sat- irists, comedians, and artists in general, should be treated the same way. What you're saying also seems to point towards an argument that has often been made about Malta, in the past. At a certain level, it seems we don't have any real understanding of what 'satire' even is, to begin with. And as a result, we tend to take satirical comments, lit- erally. Do you agree with that assessment? I certainly agree that we don't have much of a culture of satire, in Malta. We really don't. And there are a lot of factors in- volved. Part of it, I would say, is probably down to the post-co- lonial element of being 'afraid to challenge power'. And while this is only a personal opinion of mine: I don't think we've ever really had any of the symbol- ic authors, or artist, who really made a difference, in this re- spect. People like Dario Fo' in Italy, for instance: who was excom- municated by the Church, but kept going regardless. Or like Roberto Benigni: an anti-Ber- lusconi comedian, who was ac- tually on RAI, openly satirising Berlusconi while he was still at the height of his power. Personally, I feel we don't real- ly have these 'go-to people', lo- cally, who 'push the boundaries' in the same way. And there's also a lack of satire, in general. I mean: OK, there have been a few attempts in the past, here and there, on local TV. But I think there is space for a heck of a lot more; and... ... well, that's exactly my point, right there. This kind of atti- tude, by people like Gordon John-Manché - who unfortu- nately is being given a lot of air- time, at the moment; but that, I suppose, is 'collateral damage' - further stifles the possibility, of satire ever becoming a stronger part of our cultural ecosystem. And this is why I feel that Manché's actions constitute a far greater threat to freedom of expression, that the 'threats' he himself is complaining about. He is abusing an existing loop- hole in the law, to suppress sat- ire... when in fact, we should be doing everything in our power to create MORE space for sat- ire, and comedy, and artistic expression in general... and not less.