It means “you don’t know what you don’t know” and it is a perfect starting point to elaborate on the discussion provoked by my last article on the Indy (Nolens Volens). It turns out that I dared criticise the uncriticiseable and that barring a few more moderate reactions the gist of most comments would be “non sparare sulla croce rossa”. Let us see what sparked off the anger at my criticism and why – as Matt put it – both sides could be saying the same things in different ways.
1. J’accuse never condoned censorship
Let’s get this out of the way. It should by now be very clear that the line taken by this blogger on the current state of affairs regarding freedom of expression and, more particularly, the laws on censorship is one that stands firmly on the side of those who believe that our country is going through one hell of an anachronistic phase. The Stitching judgement and the inability of politicians to legislate clearly in areas where the law seems to leave a lacuna have been criticised extensively in the our writings. I canot understand why I even have to explain that part of the equation. In case it is not clear my personal position on censorship is that if it has to exist it should be in the form of classification and never in the form of outright banning.
Incidentally I also have gone on record confirming the right of extremists to express their sick (sic) ideas in public. The content of the rhetoric must be countered, if needs be, with more rhetoric and not with gagging. Criminal law would do the rest of the job: e.g. you can express your hatred of other races as much as you like (stupid, ignorant and neanderthal as you may sound) but once you incite people to violence then don’t hide behind the “freedom of expression” the moment the prison door shuts behind you. Ugly racist bigots exist. We need to be shocked with the truth not to be protected from it.
2. The hoi polloi, the spoudaios and the average man in the street
DF repeated in so many words what I have touched upon already. Xarabank is successful, village feasts and their petards still top popularity lists and Lou Bondi is considered to be an excellent investigative journalist. It should come as no surprise then that when a law court such as the First Hall Civil Court examines how the man in the street could be affected by watching a performance of Stitching it “gets it all wrong”. Let me stick my neck out again and risk being called an intellectual snob – is the law unjustified in protecting the current standard of education (for want of a better word)? If the judge sitting on a bench is to examine how the average man in the street would interpret Stitching is he to be blamed if he sees the average man as taking a dramatic metaphor literally? Is the board of censors?
Chris hit the nail on the head from a more practical perspective:
If I may (as usual) see it from the book publishing perspective: what do you expect of a country where arguably the best piece of Maltese literature written in recent years sells a maximum of 1,000 copies, in so doing practically reaching market saturation? I mean, surely the easiest, most hassle-free, Pontius Pilate way of ’supporting creativity’ in Malta would be to spend Eur10- and buy a copy of an amazing book. If less than 1,000 ppl bothered to do even that (and that’s including the assorted freebies, competition prizes, and purchases ‘tal-obbligu’ by extended families and ex-girlfriends), do you expect a 1,000 ppl to bother to turn up for a march? Or, in your desideratum, participate in some massive display of subversiveness?
Are we intellectual snobs, or as I like to call ourselves “wankellectuals” (constantly amused by mental masturbation – incidentally I have a PC term for the ladies among you – “cliterati”), when we decide that +/- 1,000 people is the maximum threshold of intelligentsia? Where does all this take us?
3. Artists of the Country Disaggregate!
The assaults on the freedom of expression have exposed, once again, a serious lacuna in this country. We are in the process of discovering Maltese “anosognosia”. We are learning about how much we do not know and how far we are from knowing. Raphael may rant all he likes about his pet pickle with students “who only protest when their pocket is hurt” (was not that a big indicator of pleasures yet to come 15 years ago?) and about how unfair of me it is to shoot on the Red Cross (not in so many words) because a bunch of University students got their chance to traipse up Republic Street with a megaphone and a coffin. Sure there is nothing wrong in this graffiti-ist reaction. I thought the same way when I convinced fellow SDM members to join Graffitti on a protest against the visit of Li Peng in Malta (I wish I could find a photo of the 20+ students who turned up to be kicked away by the police). Would I be too patronising if I said “now, now of course it makes an impact – if anything it gives MaltaToday an excuse of something to record on video” ?
That was not my point though was it? I could easily be drawn into a list of comparisons as to what makes an impact and what does not. Apparently very little does make an impact outside the formations of the PLPN power circle and unfortunately making a splash within those circles requires the big “V” word : Votes. So was I too harsh when I said that the protesters are molly-cuddled (sic) into a way of protesting/complaining that is in full conformity with the state of how things are run? Of course I was. Purposely so.
On the other hand, I’m sorry if I missed the graffito about the pope (darn) but if that is our answer to Banksy then something must be missing somewhere. We need a counterculture that gives the upcoming youth (who are still more worried about their stipend than whether they use it to buy tickets to Shakespeare at the Argotti) an alternative way of expressing their preference. Before we take the coffin to Valletta and blame the judge for showing us (mistakenly, in our way of thinking) that our society still believes that it needs to be “protected” from new ideas (sad really to describe them as new) why don’t we explore what is keeping the droves firmly stuck to Xarabank and believing in the Gospel of Bondiplus and away from the ideas behind Realtà and Stitching.
This is a country where people would presumably be shocked by a moral play bringing into question issues such as the holocaust but where 87% of respondents on an online poll would send immigrants back to Human Right Haven Libya on a boat.
4. Apologia
To conclude, I see your points – Raphael, Chris, DF, Danny, Matt and the silent ones (sono veggente) – but I stand by the points I made. Questions are being asked of our society and I believe that all parts – including the artists and wankellectuals – need to be preparing a strong case for their future role in society. Carrying coffins into Valletta may be alright for the PR (and for the footage) but it does nothing to challenge the equation.
P.S. Spare me the bullshit of “komdu int il-Lussemburgu”. I don’t know why I bother answering it but in any case before you even think it, just think – for one second – that if that statement were really true why the hell would I be bothering AT ALL?
