A few months ago I mentioned, in an interview on Dissett, that blogs were holding a mirror up to our society and that our society did not like what it saw. The process of reflection has been going on for some time now and whether it is the sudden urgency with which we are discussing Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s Bill or whether we are lost in the aftermath of the Stitching decision in court, we are constantly confronted with a picture of Maltese society – warts and all.
Much has been made of this idea that the battle between conservatives and progressives has reached its defining moment, but there is more to it than the centuries-old battle between preservation and change. While following debates on both divorce and censorship over the past week, I have noticed a trend in some of the arguments. Both subjects deal with specific values and bring to the discussion table a plethora of issues that have for a long time been dealt with quietly and away from the public eye. There lies an important point for this argument. I harbour a strong suspicion that one field in this debate – that of the conservative elements who are normally both anti-divorce and pro-censorship – is firmly rooted in denial.
This denial is built around a permanent incapacity to reconcile the facts thrown at them daily by the world around them with the principles and dogmas that they have been brought up to regurgitate. There is an innate inability to question and examine the unfamiliar allied with an ability to blot out huge portions of their own experience that would be incongruous with the very principles they would love to follow. It’s complicated. But you’ll soon see what I mean.
I can’t believe it’s not Shakespeare
Back in the time when I could play football for hours during break without fearing for life and limb, I used to return to my fourth form English literature lessons looking forward to the latest text on offer. I still vividly remember a particular play about a dysfunctional, murderous couple who were never up to any good. The woman (should I say woman?) in particular was quite a devil of a woman. To this day I am impressed by the passage of the play where she invokes the spirits to unsex her pronto and to transform her into the very embodiment of cruelty that is bereft of any remorse – a machine honed to commit any form of evil without any pangs of conscience.
That a woman would be prepared to relinquish her very own sex in order to become a perfect evil machine was surprising enough. There was more though. She then proceeds to invite murderers to come suckle from her breasts that, thanks to the aforementioned transformation, no longer provided maternal milk but had been transformed into a source of gall. Gall being of course the mediaeval word for wrath, anger, hatred… you get my drift.
Behind every great man lies a great woman. With this couple the woman is both schemer and mastermind, egging on a weak-willed husband to murder and remorseless backstabbing for the sake of power. When her husband’s will seems to wane and when he seems to be reneging on his conspiratorial promises, she once again provides him with an inspiring speech. Well, inspiring is one way of putting it. What she does tell her pussy-footing husband is that if it was her being held to her word, she would do so even if she had promised to bash the brains of her own infant. Her nonchalance is legendarily spine-chilling. She has “given suck” she says and “knows how tender ‘tis to love the babe that milks me”, but she would still “while it was smiling in my face, Have pluck’d my nipple from his boneless gums, And dash’d the brains out, had I so sworn as you Have done to this”.
A charming Lady she must have been, no doubt, this Mrs Macbeth. For yes messieurs et mesdames, this devilish dysfunctional couple is none other than the ill-fated Thane of Cawdor, Glamis, etc and his belovèd wife, and the play in question was written by the much acclaimed Bard of Avon himself – one Mr Shakespeare William of Stratford-upon-Avon. Given that the shenanigans to which these two got up could easily fall within the parameters of dangerous sexual perversions, as well as the imagery of assault and murder of suckling babes, it is a wonder how our English teacher – good, old Ms T. Friggieri – managed to present this play to a class of young impressionable adolescents without too much trouble.
Censor this?
Even if Ms Friggieri had the text whipped from her hands by Malta’s punctilious Bord ta’ Klassifika ta’ Pellikoli u Palk (hard one that, given that she is also the chairperson of said board), we could always fall back on William Golding’s magnificent Lord of the Flies and the wonderful metaphor of collective sexual climax among shipwrecked pre-adolescent boys as they stab away at a pig while being carried away in an ecstasy of violent and murderous pleasures. Who ever said school literature was boring? I wonder what the kids at Saint Aloysius’ College are reading today in the post-Stitching world. And will the Jesuits take the pupils on a trip to the cinema over Easter to watch Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ replete with exaggerated scenes of violence and sadistic suffering far beyond anything found in the Scriptures?
Gibson, Golding and Shakespeare. All use their medium to deliver a message. The audience is not expected to sit back and literally consume all that is set out before it but is rather expected to question the content. The complex characters in Shakespeare’s Macbeth expose the dangers of a quest for power – Tolkien gives us the Ring, Shakespeare gives us an unsexed half-demonic woman prepared to bash the brains of her own suckling offspring. Golding examines humanity at its most crude and Gibson? Well, Gibson took the narrative of the suffering of the Son of God and exaggerated it beyond recognition. By the very standards imposed by the Stitching decision, Gibson’s film should never have made it to the silver screens in Malta (nor, should we really be punctilious, should most tracts of the Bible).
I could go on. The list is endless. As Rupert Cefai rightly pointed out, we might be the victims of our own hypocrisy. We would be prepared to censor the portrayal of a father lifting a dagger to the skies about to murder his own son as being “violent” and “offensive to sentiments”, but we might change tack if we called the dad Abraham and the son Isaac. Every narrative has its medium and, yes, some are quite shocking. But the mere fact that they are intended to provoke does not mean that they are “bad” or “censurable”. In the end we must ask the question: Are we protecting our values or are we cushioning ignorance? The debate (unfortunately) continues.
He ain’t heavy, he’s my Jeffrey
Michael Briguglio, AD’s chairman, penned a brilliant article last Friday called “Censoring (post)-Modernity” and you can find it on www.mikes-beat.blogspot.com. In the article, he argues that when referring to “Maltese civilisation” the Court that gave us the Stitching decision was actually referring to “the dominant interests of the dominant institutions in Malta”. It goes without saying that, having written of the dangers of the stranglehold of bipartisan politics in Malta for over five years, J’accuse is in full agreement with Mike. The mainstream of both political parties is unable to deal with substantial issues such as divorce or the latest questions of censorship.
The traditionalist stranglehold must not necessarily be seen with a chiaroscuro sense of “good or evil”. It does, however, threaten to choke the rights and expressions of a different (and growing) minority aspiring to a more liberal (or if you like a toned down term, a more personal) lifestyle. This is the unrepresented minority that is not content with having others think for itself. It’s the same unrepresented minority that would like to be provoked and challenged with new ideas and which believes that the building block of society deserves a shot at a second chance if it is broken, and irretrievably so. It believes in not imposing its values and thoughts on others but, ironically, it also still feels part of the social fabric that keeps us all together.
Which brings me to JPO (abbreviation for convenience) and his Bill. It’s clumsy and elegant at the same time. It’s oxymoronically magnificent and has shocked the lethargic dinosaurs plodding at the head of Mike’s “dominant institutions” into action. Shocked was GonziPN (the man, the label and the immediate entourage) by the sudden need to take a stand without faffing away or hiding in a bishop’s frock (plus the lurking danger of a new perceived fragmentation of the party). Shocked was Muscat’s Progressive Party by the sudden realisation that its bluff, with all its flaws and miscalculations, had been called and that the honeymoon with all things progressive would soon be over once the cover has been blown. The lone part-time farmer, journalist and dentist from Zebbug had struck again with a vengeance and hooray for that. Yes, we applaud JPO for this shock treatment. No wonder we chose him as our Personality of the Year in 2008.
The Bill itself has a long way to go and there are many tricks up the sleeves of the dominant institutions before we could actually see a proper divorce bill introduced (hopefully not this cut and paste Irish job). There’s free votes and qualms of conscience, there’s an uphill battle to educate about the tutelage of minority rights, there’s a possible refusal by a Catholic President to sign the bill (an excuse to get out of the way after the recent faux pas?), and then there is the mother of all threats: an abrogative referendum. For if fundamental fanatics like the GoL people can go to extremes to coerce parliamentarians into signing bits of nonsense, how can we not expect equivalent tactics to get a future divorce bill abrogated by busybodies who would tell you when and where to copulate, if they could.
The battle lines have been drawn. Right now we should focus on the debate rather than on the people jumping in and out of the limelight. I for one am grateful for the empowered journals with their mini-video vox pops that persist in their duty to lift the mirror straight into the face of Maltese society but please, please, someone get that Board of Censors to prohibit the use of the phrase “as such” in an interview. This practical debate (fortunately) has begun.
Encyclopaedic
This article threatens to reach the encyclopaedic levels of old and that is because of the two subjects that provoke endless discussion. Do pop over to J’accuse the blog because we have been having quite a few interesting exchanges over the last few weeks. We’ll be writing and blogging from home base (Malta) next week and you’ll be able to hear about the latest ECHR case obliging a state to provide a proper set-up for its residents abroad to be able to vote (cheers to the Runs for the flagging). I pick up my rental car on Thursday morning and I hope that the roads will be a little calmer than has been reported over the last few days. Easy on the gas pedal, guys.
Finally, the World Cup will be one match short of being over by the time you finish reading this article. We will either have Spanish or Dutch celebrations – either way it’s a European victory, which is small consolation for those of us whose hopes lay elsewhere in the beginning. Unlike the eight-limbed cephalopod of note, my predictions for this world cup have been absolutely atrocious but I am still convinced that we have seen some good football. Speaking of the World Cup and Octopi, I leave you with a quote I pulled from Facebook. It’s by a colleague and fellow Juventino Damien Degiorgio:
“I’ve got nothing against Paul but World Cups used to be remembered for a Paul Gascoigne, a Paolo Rossi or Paolo Roberto Falcao, not for Paul the octopus” – brilliant.
(Errata Corrige: Chief Justice Roberts is NOT resigning as erroneously asserted in last week’s J’accuse. Chief Justice is there for life (a bit like a pet) – it is Justice John Stevens who has retired and will be replaced by Elena Kagan. Thanks to Indy readers the Jacobin and John Lane for the quick corrections.)
www.akkuza.com – uncensored, uncut, and unmarried. “Two-thirds of the country is divorced from reality. The rest would vote for divorce.” – from this week’s J’accuse.
10 replies on “J'accuse: A nation divorced from reality”
A small word on Mrs Therese Friggieri. I remeber her as one of my best teachers of English literature. I can still remember her explaining Macbeth in class. The unsex me speech by Lady Macbeth was a metaphor of Lady Macbeth trying to remove her female characteristics, the milk of human kindness,to be able to urge her husband to murder.
My impression of Mrs Friggieri is that she is the anithesis of a dyed-in-the-wool conservative.
I remember less distinctly The Lord of the Flies. However I remember reading there are various themes and intepretations of this story including religious, moral and legal interpretations as well as interpretations regarding the relationship between man and society.
I did not see Gibson’s film but only saw the you tube excerpt of the film, but I think the violence must be taken in context of the whole film.
I feel there is a great difference between Stitching, and the literature and the film mentioned. So the Jesuits do not have much to worry about.
Maybe I will comment later whether Maltese society is divorced from reality or married to basic goods.
I end with the bard’s words “fair is foul and foul is fair”.
Thanks for your “small word” David. Your comments remind me of a broken pencil – pointless – but lest for one minute you go away with the idea that you have made any point whatsoever in favour of the dyed-in-the-wool conservative decision you would so love to justify here are my “two words”.
1) The qualities of Ms Friggieri as a teacher of English literature are not brought into question by this article. Whether she was your preferred teacher or pet hate is absolutely irrelevant to this conversation.
2) Well done for your succinct summary of the passages of Shakespeare. Even though I had already summarised their content (and the metaphor) myself I am glad that in the case of Shakespeare (maybe because it is Shakespeare and your belovéd teacher) you are prepared to be engaged with the metaphor and challenged by its message. Something you are obviously prepared to forego in the case of stitching.
3) Dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Again irrelevant. Not only that but I’m afraid in this case you’ll have to forgive me if I add the personal element and state that in your case even Pope Benedict XVI begins to seem like an avant garde liberal.
4) Again re: Lord of the Flies you tend to forget that you yourself told me in an earlier conversation that you DO NOT REMEMBER reading Lord of the Flies. Your “distinct memory” is of a quick summary of notes for GCSE students that you googled following our conversation (yes, you sent me the link). Again I am glad that you are prepared to examine the various meanings in a text – whether it is with your favourite school teacher, of your own accord or through the questionable medium of cheap notes found on the internet. It is beyond human comprehension how someone advocating such a happy co-existence with texts such as Shakespeare’s and Golding cannot appreciate the damage of the Court Stitching decision having deprived him of his own ability to make up his mind on the quality and message the play is passing on. (And yes, I’m sorry but liberal Friggieri was on that board that decided that you are not good enough to assess the values in Stitching).
5) As for Gibson’s film. Please re-read your own sentence. If you are so insistent on the fact that the violence be taken in the context of the whole film then I would suggest you damn well watch the whole film first before shooting non sequiturs at anyone. When you do get down to watch it do bear in mind your phrase and think of Stitching in that perspective – the violence must be taken in context of the whole play. Does it still work? I wonder whether “two weights and two measures” will come in at any point.
6)”I feel there is a great difference between Stitching, and the literature and the film mentioned. So the Jesuits do not have much to worry about.”
Seeing how you have not seen Stitching (banned), not read Lord of the Flies and not seen the Passion of the Christ by Gibson I fail to see how you even chose to venture into the argument in the first place.
I wouldn’t worry about the jesuits if I were you. First thing I suggest is a good copy of Golding’s masterpiece. Then, if you really have to, watch the Passion of the Christ.
We might still be in time.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Since my pointless comments merited presumably pointless answers I am answering to the point.
1) I presume you agree with me on Mrs Friggieri’s qualities as a teacher.
2) Yes Mrs Friggieri explanation’s on Sha
kespeare’s Macbeth is still clear in my mind.
3)How people change! Pope Benedict is considered a liberal and Mrs Friggieri a conservative (or the latter maybe has unsexed herself beyond recognition?)
4) I had Lord of the Flies at school many light years ago and I must have read it as I recall the gist of the story and the different interpretations of the story. The exam notes, which are cheap as students do not have much money to spend, maybe not be so cheap in their interpretation of the story.
5) I saw the allegedly violent scenes of Gibson. I presume the rest of the film is not violent. So the film as a whole is not violent. Besides the film relates to a familiar story of a victim of violence who preached against violence.
6) If you read the judgement on Stitching, and consider the evidence of the censorship board and other witnesses as well as the excerpts of the play quoted in the judgement, there are clearly cogent reasons for censorship. I have not read any arguments countering the reasoning of the stitching judgement.
This convinces me that this judgement is legally and factually sound and the play Stitching is so disturbing to say the least that it even shocked New York City.
Still engaging in fuzzy logic Dave? Let me entertain you:
1) Irrelevant (presumptive or otherwise)
2) Never stated otherwise.
3) They do don’t they?
4) The point remains: someone who claims to “must have read” a book doesn’t exactly give the impression, let alone prove, of having a grasp of the contents.
5) Allegedly violent? Can I have a double of what you are having? Is it legal?
6) My argument is that if you accept the “cogent reasons” in the judgement then you accept that they are “cogent reasons” for the censorship of (a) Stitching, (b) Shakespeare’s Macbeth, (c) Golding and (d) Gibson’s movie (among many, many other things). All are equal before the law I guess.
Shocked New York City? Not from the Press Clips it doesn’t seem it has. The worst it got was ” a couple of walkouts in Edinburgh”.
Well it appears you are not very familiar with the play Stitching. In fact it has been described as “The controversial play that shocked New York City” (www.stitchingtheplay.com/press.html) and shocked also theatre goers in the UK who walked out of the play (I have never been to a play or cinema where this happened): “Barely one day into the Edinburgh festival, audiences known for their cast-iron stomachs have staged their first walkouts on grounds of taste” (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OmlgwNUOKSUJ:www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/aug/05/edinburgh02.edinburgh+play+stitching&cd=3&hl=fr&ct=clnk).
Need I say more to contradict the denial of the self evident truth (“tmeri s-sewwa magħruf” as my old professor of philosophy of law used to say)?
People walked out in Edinburgh. If you just scroll up you will see that I told you that myself. Of the press clippings here (www.stitchingtheplay.com/press.html) you seem to have ignored the vast majority. What makes people like me, ignorant deniers of the truth that we are, lie down and weep is how blidningly close-minded you can be to ignore the fact that the cast-iron stomached people in Edinburgh HAD THE BLOODY CHOICE to walk out if they liked to. Others (presumably, as you like to repeat) stayed on. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT CHOICE AND YOU ARE HAPPY WITH THAT SITUATION CROWING ON A BUNCH OF NON-SEQUITURS.
Denial of the self-evident truth???? You should write that in big letters on the wall in front of you for it seems you have not repeated it enough.
Incidentally here’s a game you’ll love: what famous document begins with the famous words “We hold these truths to be self-evident”? And what truths are safeguarded in that document?
Ooooh. Look: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3488370.stm
There were protests against ‘Passion of the Christ’. Ban it.
Iran issued a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. We must ban his literature, short of hunting him down.
On the basis of this argument, we should ban anything that’s so shit that people turn it off. I think I will stage a protest against the Eurovision song contest.
Clearly, Philosophy of Law did not include a logic component.
Come on David you can’t be serious! I’m not going to repeat as Jacques has replied and I’ve got nothing to add to that. But come on, the two weights and two measures employed here is screaming at everyone in the face.
It is a self-evident truth I am familiar with the famous document written in a land you visited lately and whose President has been described by a very important person as suntanned and it is also self-evident that you subscribe to the truths upheld by this prestigious declaration.
These truths are so self-evident that I do not need to repeat them. However I will only repeat the first part “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights”
Enjoy your holiday (a blogging holiday or a holiday from blogging?).
It is an equally self evident truth that you are free to see Stitching and even get a divorce in this land of people endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights.
Enjoy your holidays Jacques.