Monday, 2nd November 2009
BANNING A NEWSPAPER, IN 2009!
I haven't come across the paper that seems sorely to have exercised the Rector of our University, though when I do, I will be sure to take hold of it and give it a rigorous once-over, to see if the glowing praise heaped upon it in the other English language paper is justified.
To quote Ms Bonello, who penned the piece, "The newspaper, Ir-Realta', which is disseminated for free in many parts of Malta, contains well researched and articulated contents, satire and art. It is different from leading newspapers with its hard-punch critique and modern art by local artists, and for this reason, it does not go down well with the conservative elements of this country."
It is published by ‘The Collective', described as "a group of free thinking individuals".
These individuals have characterised the banning of their paper at the University as "a cover up", comparing the ban to the Nazi Burning of the Books. Let's forgive them this slight touch of hyperbole, because it is understandable that when what is supposed to be our premier centre of excellence and the promoter of deep thought deprives its denizens of the opportunity to think for themselves, feelings run high.
I have expressed my thoughts on bans being imposed by those who think they know better while discussing the failure of the Film & Theatre Classification Board to grant a performing license to "Stitching". In case you missed them, I'll summarise said thoughts for you: it was an obscenity (the ban, not the play) and the people responsible should resign and there's an end to it.
You cannot expect to militate in the field of the arts and then seek to impose your (repressive) views on others.
It seems that the Rector has banned the paper from distribution at Tal-Qroqq because it contains discriminatory messages. Precisely why, even if this is the case, the Rector has decided to take the role of prosecuting officer and magistrate is not entirely clear: he is not responsible for the contents of a paper published by others merely because it is distributed on campus.
He is not the headmaster of a primary school after all for all that his students sometimes invite themselves to be treated as such.
So if the Rector cannot be held responsible for the contents of the paper, what moved him to ban it? He might, as is his right, find its contents offensive, although the publishers insist that they are being satirical and trying to get a message across that is positive and not meant to be taken literally, but the Rector's distaste, justified or not as it may be, is not sufficient grounds for a Draconian measure such as ordering the Beadle to traipse around consigning the thing to the trash can.
And even if the Rector can, for some arcane legal reason, be held liable for what is done on his (our, more precisely) campus, surely it behoves our top academic to take a stand for freedom of speech and expression, rather than against it?
It's not as if this was some expression of filthy and vicious racism, after all, or paedophiliac pornography: it is only vileness of these genres that deserves cutting off at source.
Let's hope that better counsel prevails, and soon.
In the meantime, while Voltaire gyrates in his grave, I trust that ‘The Collective' will ensure that sufficient copies of their publication are left around the campus so that even a veritable army of Beadles and Assistant Beadles and Sub-Assistant Beadles and any other minions drafted in by the Rector will be unable to cope.
RSS
Comments
The Rightwing would exist if they were in parliament or as MEP's. I and another 5000 do exist but what can we all do in a country that believes in fairy tales and fireworks ?
I know I exist because I love eating well, more then our Liberal eating friend here. :)
"So please, don't blame the good Rightwing for anything because we don't exist in this country".
Are you saying that you don't exist?
You have lost your basic understanding of political reason. This country is socialist from A to Z. Even you are a socialist. The newspaper and the people that banned it are leftwing and it's in their nature to do such things.
So please, don't blame the good Rightwing for anything because we don't exist in this country. Quality comes in small doses here ! S Farrugia, Sliema))
The owner of this newspaper have a right to decide what should or shouldn't be published in his own website. Just like the owner of say XYZ theatre should have the right to decide which play to stage or not in his own theatre. The Film & Theatre Classification Board did not grant a performing license to Stitching. If I understood it correctly, this means that without the license, Stitching can be staged in no theatre, not even where the owner of a particular venue grant his approval to stage the play.
Likewise, this and every other comment here is checked by the website's moderators before getting published. Anyone arguing against censorship care to explain why this is so?
By the way, not allowing Ir-Realta to publish the article isn't censorship. It is law enforcement.
"David nobody imposed anything or anyone."
I think you addressed the wrong person. His name is Ivan Grech Mintoff not David.
If I may just add 3 words or your wise words...
"People have got quite some guile to ride their high horse and impose their moralisms (OR LACK OF) in order to make up for their failures as human beings"
One can read that sentence in MANY ways and from many standpoints therefore one can only agree and say: very, very true indeed!
That would be a perfect "MODERN" piece of intellectuality.....
(And we all know where all "MODERN" things ended up, don't we...?)
;)
"No one should force the Manoel theatre' owners to host a play that they don't want to host."
The owners of the theatre are the people of Malta.
We DEMAND (as is our RIGHT) that the law of the land be obeyed by all and as the board decided not to issue the licence then that should be accepted by all. They should move on and concentrate on getting their message of "life, love and death." in a more acceptable manner or take it somewhere more appropraite...
"One should have all the freedom to decide for himself, but not the freedom to decide for others."
See above...!!!
"betrayed his rightist tendencies, tendencies which involve dictating what everyone else should do or think."
a) It is those who insist that the law is "oppresive" who are dictating to those who think that the law is there to PROTECT and indeed offers freedom. You are DEMANDING that your play be shown regardless that the law says otherwise.
One might frankly add to that... who do you think you are to disregard the law in such a manner??
b) the above sentence translate to the fact that the rightist tendencies involves "dictating what everyone else should do or think."
Whilst many would agree with you, are you sure you didn't leave your (tinted) specs off this morning?
You sure you want to portray your corner in that manner...?
And if you stand by what you wrote are you not therefore admitting that as you are from that corner then you too have "tendencies which involve dictating what everyone else should do or think."?
hmmm...
I seem to be the only one wiyth "close associations with the (so-called) Left" in this corner of the ring. I assume that you addressing me (albeit indirectly, due to your idiotic,very immature and sad(my opinion) "self-imposed omerta")...
"they have a right to impose what they think is right on everyone else."
No one is trying to do that (- and well you know it!).
I am suggesting that the law is there for ALL and MUST be obeyed for society's sake.
Inversly, your bloc(sic!) implies that the law is an ass and should be ignored by those who feel 'oppressed'(sic!) by it... You go as far as to ask for resignations by those who are upholding it even. (mad!)
That is what is sad, in reality....
" it is in reaction to the banning of a newspaper of the Left, "
This has NOTHING to do with left/right!
Unlike you, I do not see everything through tinted glasses ie blue=good, red=devil no matter what.(Sad)
The law is there for ALL.
Perhaps your writings betray your penchant to the contrary on that too.
(Not too surprising, I guess....)
"has betrayed his rightist tendencies,"
You wish!!
The 80s scared me, an Orwellian society scares me, self-imposed moral guardians scare me, and people like IGM terrify me. It terrifies me that he's not alone in being so seemingly unaware of the dangers of extreme censorship. Part of me wishes that he gets his comeuppance; but that can't happen without the deterioration of the society the rest of us live in.
So instead I will ignore him. high road? not at all. I just haven't had my coffee yet and he makes my head hurt.
"what if they demand to do so at the manoel theatre 'in the name of art"??"
No one should force the Manoel theatre' owners to host a play that they don't want to host.
"(Using the argument that the individual has a right to do as he wishes..)Why?? Who on earth are you to stop Person ABC if he wants to force himself on DEF and he finds nothing morally wrong with it?"
You're not comparing like with like. In the case where someone wants to watch a play in an appropriate closed building were only adults are allowed is different from your ABC-DEF case. In the former case he can enjoy his right of watching what interests him without trampling on my right to ignore it. In your ABC-DEF case, on the other hand, it's not possible for ABC to "force himself on DEF" without violating DEF's right of NOT being raped. One should have all the freedom to decide for himself, but not the freedom to decide for others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21kaplan.html?pagewanted=1&%2339&sq=grove%20press%20lady%20chatterley&st=cse&%2359;s&scp=1
"read orwell's 1984 "
I have.
Its now 2009.
Guess what? It DIDN'T happen,,,
"I have viewed a performance of this play; so i'm not talking out of my backside."
so viewing the play=not talking through your backside, now?
And (by implication)
NOT so viewing the play = talking through your backside?
Again that means that I have to live the horror of a concentration camp before I can say that it is.... horrific, right?
(sigh..)
"i'm talking about viewing a performance (in this particular case) which has something important to say about life, love and death."
Great! so tell us...
Since you saw the play and since you seem to be of a theatrical bent...
you think that "something important about life and death" could not have been EQUALLY portrayed without the use of a needle & thread on a vagina, bad language , referals to death camps, the jews etc etc...... in such a base and silly manner? Seriously now...
If you think that THIS was the ONLY way that it could have been portrayed then not much good as a playwright is he...???
Unless this is the only way he can make some noise..?
This will be my last foray as I REALLY have to get back to work and I think I cannot make my point any clearer anyway:
"re ABC forcing himself on DEF..... how can that even be an argument?"
The argument is a simple one:either the law is to be obeyed whether you like it or not... or else there should be NO law. What is acceptable to you might not be acceptable to me & vice versa. Hence a common law that must be obeyed by all....and not "selective laws applicable to (my) taste (only)"
"i'm talking about PRIVATE viewings "
The take it to a more fitting venue...
"Stitching, tomorrow what?"
(Theatrically) Exagerated nonsense! How many other plays have been banned likewise? This decade!
"then frankly - YES." ( you will die...)
Again more exagerated theatrics...
:(
Nobody will die (No. not not even "freedom of speach" (sic)!!!).
As you know very well.
"YES,the board SHOULD resign "
I believe they did everything above board.
"by banning one piece you are setting a precedent for banning ALL art and ALL freedom of speech. "
Please...!
"So... you're going to die if "old" "antiquated" "Ayatollahs" like me prevent you from watching this at public institutions...? "
If by 'public institutions' you mean closed theatres where i pay to enter; then frankly - YES.
today Stitching, tomorrow what?
by banning one piece you are setting a precedent for banning ALL art and ALL freedom of speech. read orwell's 1984 - it has time and time and time again proved to be more than just a 'fairytale'.
I reiterate, i'm talking about PRIVATE viewings and/or performances - not shoving things down peoples' throats in the middle of republic street for example.
i'm not talking about inciting people to murder, violence or anything illegal.
i'm talking about viewing a performance (in this particular case) which has something important to say about life, love and death.
and yes, for the record, I have viewed a performance of this play; so i'm not talking out of my backside.
re ABC forcing himself on DEF ..... how can that even be an argument? i mean, seriously! how can you compare RAPE to CONSENSUAL viewing of a performance? if you can't see the difference then you shouldn't be trusted with a computer and a means to talk to other people.
if the banning of stitching (as we seem to be using this play as an example) DOES prove to have been 'illegal' and against human rights, then YES, the board SHOULD resign as they didn't do their job properly. their job is to read the play and judge what the performance would be like and whether it would break any laws etc. censoring and banning are two different things. to BAN something it must be found to have broken a law.
"No, but i do have a right to MY oppnion: its crud. "
i suspect you're not talking about snow that is unsuitable for skiing on, but something that is crude. fair enough, that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. not to FORCE it onto others though (vide abcdef above). just out of curiosity - have you watched the play?
"...In private"
so therefore:
a) Why in private? what if they demand to do so at the manoel theatre 'in the name of art"?? Publically and without any restriction as they feel nothing morally wrong and -indeed- to prevent them would be a reach of fundamental right?
b) why can't this play be shown likewise? In private?
" Doing it everywhere they want would mean depriving the right of others, including children of their protection from obscenity etc. "
a) But isn't that the WHOLE reason why it was not given a licence (or 'Banned'- ABC)?
b) again Person ABC sees nothing immoral about NOT protecting children and others from obscenity... in fact they SHOULD be made to see such actions at school so they may be taught "reality"... How DARE you impose your beliefs on an artist like Person ABC!!!
(where would it stop..? :))
Hence the requirement for LAW in a society. Yes even if we don't like it: it defines what can and cannot be done.
"I can't tell,because it depends on what exactly their duties were and whether they followed them correctly"
Interesting: Can anyone shed ANY light on any wrongdoing from the board's side?
Do we know the few key sources that collaborate to spread alleged repression? Is this alleged culture of repression limited to the pseudo moral type or does it also support a power-base?
in my eyes, the answers grow clearer and clearer by the day as the platform upon which npliberals stand, grows narrower by the second.
"i'm not the ruler of the world; and neither, mr/dr/fr grech mintoff, are you."
I don not pretend that I am. But that does not prevent me from having an oppinion. And my oppinion is:
- the law is there for EVERYONE.
- if you don't like it , change it (not ask for resignations etc from those who are practicing it)
- the play is crud and should only be allowed to be seen in seedy Valletta/Floriana cinema type of venues and NOT in a reputable public theatre. That way you want to see it, go see it there (it'll add to the excitement/atmosphere is is trying to portray..)
"so live and let live dude"
So... you're going to die if "old" "antiquated" "Ayatollahs" like me prevent you from watching this at public institutions...?
You right of free speech has forever been curtailed and you are now living in a police state are you?
oh.... PLEASE!!
"if DEF doesn't wish to participate then no, ABC has no right to force him/her."
(Using the argument that the individual has a right to do as he wishes..)Why?? Who on earth are you to stop Person ABC if he wants to force himself on DEF and he finds nothing morally wrong with it?
"Stitching hasn't broken any laws - hasn't TRIED to break any laws - it hasn't been shown to a paying public. so why it is sticking in your throat beats me."
a) I didn't say that it did. I did say that there is an implication that the present law is 'antiquated' etc and should NOT stop this play being shown publically.
This, and the demand for resignations from "those who should know better" is what sticks in my throat and is unacceptable to me.
b) To be precise, ABC said that it was banned: "it was an obscenity (the ban, not the play) and the people responsible should resign"
"but do you have the RIGHT to dictate what art is or should be for everyone?"
No, but i do have a right to MY oppnion: its crud.
you believe that the play has no merit etc etc (i'm not even going to address your reasons as I don't have time or energy to waste on trying to argue what art is with you) .... but do you have the RIGHT to dictate what art is or should be for everyone? i personally find a lot of modern art to be pointless and to offend my intelligence (witness : artist's poo in a can, soooo many paintings which are nothing but a line or a scribble) but if they mean something to others, WHO AM I to say that they are not art and shouldn't be enjoyed as such??? i don't have to spend my hard earned money to view them in a gallery. i spend it elsewhere.
i'm not the ruler of the world; and neither, mr/dr/fr grech mintoff, are you.
so live and let live dude
"...the (mad) idea that it is the individual who should decide what to do or not in ANY situation." It is indeed a mad idea. I never said that one should decide what to do in ANY situation. If two persons want to "sodomize" even though it is considered by many (including myself) to be immoral, they should have the right to do it, but in private. Doing it everywhere they want would mean depriving the right of others, including children of their protection from obscenity etc.
Regarding Q2, no, one should abide by the law even if he disagrees with it. All he/she can do is to try to modify that law democratically. Regarding the artistic value of Stitching, I can't argue because I know little about it and am not interested in knowing more. But even if I knew more about it, it would be useless arguing anyway, because beauty and art are subjective.
And finally, regarding whether the Board should resign or not, I can't tell, because it depends on what exactly their duties were and whether they followed them correctly.
re Q1 and sodomy. your person ABC has every right to enjoy sodomy as much as s/he likes provided that s/he doesn't force any unwilling person to join her/him. that's the difference. if person DEF ALSO likes sodomy and wants to engage in it in a private setting - who are WE to tell them not to. if DEF doesn't wish to participate then no, ABC has no right to force him/her.
re Q2. if you read what people are saying you will see that this question HAS been answered.
in the case of Stitching - the law is being debated. as it stands, yes, the board seem to have a right to ban. the producers et al are saying that such a law goes against human rights. not all laws are infallible and make sense. when they are wrong or outdated they need to be queried and possibly changed or updated. Stitching hasn't broken any laws - hasn't TRIED to break any laws - it hasn't been shown to a paying public. so why it is sticking in your throat beats me.
cont .../2
...now the wreath of GonziPN is upon them......give us a break dear cracking government
PL......lullaby mode again and again
Let us all, for the sake of argument, hypothetically agree with the (mad) idea that it is the individual who should decide what to do or not in ANY situation.
Several questions spring to mind:
Q1)Shouldn't that ideology apply to EVERYTHING?(why just this play?)
Example:Person 'ABC' sees absolutely nothing morally wrong with sodomy. He therefore decides that nobody has a right to 'prevent' him from sodomising say Person 'DEF' publically everytime he sees him.
Must that therefore HAVE to be accepted by all lest we all be branded Ayatollahs, antiquated etc etc....?
Using your argument how DARE anyone tell Person 'ABC' how to life his life: you have no right whatsoever to stop him or indeed any other act under the sun as "it is the individual who should decide what to do or not in ANY situation."
q2) (and NOBODY has answered THIS question directly yet!)
In THIS particular case, is there a clear insinuation that the present law should be broken by those who stand to profit from breaking it?
q3) If so, are only "certain" laws to be broken ... and only by the "chosen few" or can they ALL be broken by all and sundry?
"If you don't like Stitching, don't watch it."
No... the law says:
The board has a right to disallow its performance.
Therefore (as we all know) it has not been shown.
If you show it, you break the law and (should) suffer the consequences.
Simple.
Whether you/I/anyone else likes it or not.
IT IS THE LAW...
(if on the other hand there is something that is actually legal and I do not wish to see it, then I have the option not to see it as you rightly point out.
THAT is the freedom that I cherish... and refuse to have someone else's morals (or lack of) shoved down my throat because they say it should be so!
:)
I'm insulted by chewing gum. Doesn't mean I'm going to ban it.
If you don't like Stitching, don't watch it.
If you don't like that article, don't read it.
Simple.
I mean, you have the right to call people names in your articles, such as " racists" but others cannot call you names because they would be banned.
Incidentally, one should see the verbal abuse/filth I have been subjected to by the producer of this play simply because I agree with censorship in principle . . . pretty much goes to show how the filth he peddles has indeed affected him!
"you have no merit in your arguments because obviously you have not even read the play. "
I see. So ....would I also have had to experience Auschwitz before I can comment that it was no Butlins..?
"You have allowed other people to tell you what to think, exactly like when your unlce or cousin or whoever was Prime Minister."
Ha!
And now that we've cleared up the "real message" you wished to convey in your post (sigh...), perhaps you might regale us with an answer to my post:
Should people break the law just because they don't like it or should they abide to it?
Anarchy is ok with me too...
Provided it is total and not only just for 'the chosen ones', whilst the others are stifled and controlled UTTERLY by those who think they are above the law....?
There are plenty of laws I'd like to break.
Not pay my taxes for one, perhaps get myself a harem and squat in someone else's Villa with pool without having to pay for any of it!!
Haha
On a serious note: the REAL problems in society start when the few decide that the law is holding them back, they bend and eventually bend them with impunity and they make themselves untouchable.
On the other hand a sane & stable society accepty the mimitations of its laws and democratically changes those which become obsolete.
At least that is my view of a healthy society!
I don't think its too late to save what is left of ours either.
Provided that we keep insisting that the law is the law.
For everyone.
And now.... I REALLY have to get back to my work!
Example about a REAL play :go see Lady In Black, Shakespeare's Henry V etc etc
You don't need someone chopping off heads/limbs and splattering with real blood(etc) to imagine the battle scenes:the narration and acting places you right in the middle of it!
You don't need to shock anyone with "base tactics"
This play goes over the top morally for nothing but money.
I say again, I do not believe that its intention is "beauty", "to teach anything" or any form of art but is just a way to grab publicity (and therefore money) by shocking.
If that is acceptable to you then why (for the sake of art) should an artist NOT be allowed to amputate himself in real terms for effect..?
Or indeed harm actually someone so we can all enjoy the pain and the torture?
Or rape or sodomise someone else for 'shock'?
For art, of course!
(Do we REALLY need these tactics to have the horror of such things related to us...? I think not)
Finally, just to be clear, my REAL argument is NOT about this particular play but on ABUSING the law to suit one's taste and one's friend's interests....
Please refer to my post below as to what the law is etc.
"why you believe that this play is not art"
definition of art:"the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." etc
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art
I believe that all the 'author' is trying to do is:
- none of the above
- to shock, grab publicity & make loads of money...
"why it has no merit "
I believe it to be nothing a perverse publicity stunt
"and what you base your opinion on"
on my experiences of life which tell me that IF (for instance)the 'author' wanted to discuss (say) the tragedy of losing a child,rape etc then there are plenty of ways of doing so, (more effectively,I might add) by allowing the audience to use their imagination rather than have an 'actor' shove what I term as nothing short of crud down one's face.
Is it not the law of the land to have a Film & Theatre Classification Board ?
Is it not the law of the land that this board has the power to issue a performing license ... or not?
Is that not what happened, to be exact?
That is the law.
If you don't like it change the law.
Not break it.
PS others have pointed out to me that this might be a thinly disguised way of "influencing" present court proceedings (next hearing to be held on 15th December).....
I think my point is made.
It is clear enough.
I do not see why I have to labour the point any more, give publicity to, or be used help influence any decision on present court proceedings.
however i would honestly and truly and without prejudice like to hear why you believe that this play is not art, why it has no merit and what you base your opinion on ....
and why you mention anarchy.
i look forward to it .....
however if the courts DO eventually ban the play - you will also be a loser. freedom is one of the most precious things we have. do you REALLY want that taken away?
and yes, they're trying to CHANGE the law - to YOUR benefit so being a bit nicer, more polite and more erudite wouldn't kill you, you know.
ok just read that back - why on this green earth am i doing your homework for you? if you're so convinced that the play is 'not art' and 'should be banned' AT THE VERY LEAST do your research.
cont ...... /2
Which law would the play "Stitching" have broken?
Rubbish!!!
(and I expect much better from a self-declared "learned gentleman" as you.....)
Its ... "THE LAW".
Geddit?
And since when should people abiding by and upholding the law be made to resign just because you and your ilk don't like it?
It might be seen as 'the norm to break the law as you please" nowadays, but I'll sumarise:
"If you don't like a particular law, change it. Not ignore it."
Cos if you can get away with that then why can't someone else... etc etc.
And guess where that would end....?
We have enough trouble pretending that all is well without anarchy given a free riegn "in the name of art"
And rest assured that the are plenty (more than you lot I would say) who deem that particular play as anything BUT art....
So stop being such a sore loser ....
Its BANNED.
Legally.
Get over it.