Library

Stitching (An Illustrated Conversation)

The debate rages on. Yesterday’s lunchtime discussion veered onto the issue of censorship and the recent Stitching decision. After the break two persons, who I shall call Caius and Titus not to deviate from the subject, resumed the discussion with an exchange of emails. I found the discussion very interesting (and only intervened once between a meeting and another) and would like to share it with the J’accuse readers. You should note that the email exchange kicked off with a reference to a blog post by lawyer Kevin Aquilina that was heavily critical of the play. You can read the post by clicking here before returning to this discussion.

CAIUS: Artikolu tajjeb dwar id-dramm Stitching mill-aspett legali (provides link).

TITUS: L-artiklu (Kevin Aquilina ex chairman tal-awtorità tax-xandir), qrajtu (mhux fid-dettall). Ma impressjonani xejn anzi pjuttost kellu l-effett kuntrarju fuqi. Huwa jsostni li ġej:

1. Uncivilized Use of Language: Rude and vulgar, obscene and blasphemous language is used throughout the play.

2. Glorification of perversion: The play glorifies perversion, depicting it as being the acceptable norm in a civilised society rather than the exception (stitching a woman’s vagina as an act of sexual pleasure; bestiality – having sex with animals; a woman eating another woman’s shit; seeking pleasure in (a) child rape; (b) child murder; (c) having sex with the mothers of the raped and killed children, etc.

3. Disparaging the Right to Life: … the ‘discussion’ in the play on abortion is so valueless and baseless that there can be said to be no recognition of human dignity of the person including the unborn child, bearing also in mind that abortion in Malta is a criminal offence.

4. Sensationalising Perversity and Inhumanity: Both characters (Stu and Abby) are perverse and inhumane: they do not show a single shred of remorse on the killing of Daniel (their first child); they do not appear to be willing to carry out their parental responsibilities as part of their right for respect of family life in order to save the second child from abortion… burning children alive and then killing them and seeing the mothers of the murdered children seduced, fucked, fingered in their arseholes and putting the whole films portraying these heinous criminal acts on the web …

6. Advocating Degradation, Mutilation and Humiliation of Humanity: Abby is continuously degraded and humiliated by Stu in so far as his sexual demands go and in the way how he speaks to her and treats her (he repeatedly calls her a ‘whore’, he requests her to submit her person to various perverse and degrading sexual acts from her and addresses her with no sense of respect or décor);

7. Uncivilized Behaviour: uncivilized behaviour is considered to be normal and acceptable… Some of these conducts constitute criminal offences not only under the Laws of Malta but in other Council of Europe Member States, in Council of Europe Conventions and international criminal law ????????????????????

Re il-vittmi tal-olokawst, is-soltu vera nkun kontra ideat bħal meta bniedem jinnega l-olokawst eċċ, iżda sempliċement il-fatt li l-karattru jammetti li kien iġerrieh għan-nisa sejrin jinqatlu ma hijiex espressjoni ta’ opinjoni. Huwa sempliċement mezz (forsi “in bad taste”) biex juri l-perversità tal-bniedem.

Kollox ma kollox naħseb qrajt u ġejt espost għal dan kollu !!!!

CAIUS: Għaldaqstant huwa ċar li d-dramm juri l-bniedem fl-agħar tiegħu u għalhekk fih hemm kull forma ta’ aġir immorali u illegali, liema aġir huwa kkundannati f’ħafna soċjetajiet. Fil-fehma tiegħu l-arti għandha teżalta u mhux tbaxxi lill-bniedem u turi l-agħar perversitajiet tiegħu.

J’ACCUSE: Quote “Fil-fehma tiegħu l-arti għandha teżalta u mhux tbaxxi lill-bniedem u turi l-agħar perversitajiet tiegħu” Unquote i.e. fil-fehma tieghu l-arti ghandha tigdeb. Nahseb kien imur tajjeb ma mussolini u shabu.

CAIUS: Le mhux tigdeb imma turi l-verita’ fuq il-valur tal-bniedem. Dan il-valur ma jinsabx fl-istinti annimaleski li jbaxxuh.

TITUS: Li tiekol il-ħara għal gost sesswali ma huwiex istint annimalesk. Ma nafx b’annimal li jagħmel hekk … Dak huwa l-bniedem fil-kumplessità tiegħu …

CAIUS: Fil-fatt forsi huwa agħar minn annimalesk, huwa anki kontra n-natura. Għalhekk dak li jiddeskrivi d-dramm ma fihx valur pożittiv.

TITUS: Ok… Mela allura min jimxi kontra n-natura għandu jiġi ċċensurat … L-istess bħal ma niċċensuraw il-perverżjonijiet tagħna … Ninsewhom u ngħixu l-illużjoni li l-bniedem huwa safi minn kull dnub.

Mela r-ritratt tat-tifla taħrab għarwiena minn bomba tan-napalm fil-Vjetnam għandu jiġi ċċensurat għax huwa att agħar minn annimalesk kontra n-natura … (Premju pulitzer 1972).

Pulitzer Prize Winner - 1972

Glorification of perversion

Disparaging the Right to Life:

Advocating Degradation, Mutilation and Humiliation of Humanity:

Uncivilized Behaviour

Iżda xorta jibqa’ l-fatt li għandu valur, mhux biss bħala dokument storiku iżda wkoll minħabba proprju dawn l-affarijiet hawn fuq imsemmija li skont Kevin Aquilina (u int) għandhom iservu bħala bażi għal ċensura …

CAIUS: Fil-fatt hemm liġijiet kontra tali atti.

TITUS: Iva hemm u tajjeb li hemm… imma ma jfissirx li ma tistax tagħmel rappreżentanzi tagħhom jew turi xbihat tagħhom lil pubbliku adult …

***

I end this post with a quote from an essay by Umberto Eco (more next Sunday in the Indy)  called “Hands off My Son”. It is about people who “were unable to distinguish between the Christ of the Gospels and the one of the film (ed. Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ)”:

“To see a representation as the Thing Itself is one of the modern forms of idolatry.” – Eco.

WARNING: The following video clip contains scenes of extreme violence, perversion and inhumanity that may be considered disturbing by certain audiences (the movie did qualify for viewing in Maltese cinemas though so I guess it’s ok).

He ain't heavy, he's my Jeffrey

As expected, GonziPN is already rallying up for the challenge of the double-D boob thrown at them by JPO (Double D stands for Divorce Debate in case you were wondering). The first concern for PN remains the need to convey the clear message that there is no threat to the relative majoirty – single seat government (obtained with a 1,600 vote majority – giving it very little moral authority to impose whatever principles it espouses beyond normal day to day managament of the nation). That concern has been shaken by JPO’s renegade move. At least we have to believe it is a renegade movethat has been both unvetoed and unvetted by the PN parliamentary group because, if we are to stick to this line, JPO presented this clone of Ireland’s Divorce Act without any help from his friends.

Unity before discussion is therefore a major point on Gonzi’s agenda. Even before venturing into the proselytising, catholic pandering and blatant ignorance of the duties of society towards the minority who do not believe that their life should be ruled by the Curia – even before that – Gonzi & Co had to reconcile JPO’s position with their own, for the sake of the government. Hence the comments last night by our PM appearing in this morning’s papers which are very revealing in deed – no need to wait for the parliamentary group’s meeting:

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi said this evening he did not agree with Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s position and with the method he used in presenting a private member’s bill on bill. He told timesofmalta.com: “This is a very serious matter. I have called a Parliamentary group meeting tomorrow, this has to be followed by a discussion at party level. Only then will we be able to take an official position.” Dr Pullicino Orlando, the Prime Minister said, took a personal initiative based on his personal position which was well known, so his position did not surprise anyone. However, Dr Gonzi said, this subject was so important that the electorate should have the opportunity to express itself after being informed. (The Unlinkable Times)

There you have it. The three pronged approach.

In primis, (you can imagine the serious face here) there is the acceptance of the fact that (a) GonziPN (the entity represented by the man) does not agree with JPO (rally behind me those who care for our future!) (b) GonziPN draws second blood by criticising the method of this travesty of a backstab (Private Members’ Bill? What’s that?). So the battleground is clear. Insofar as principles are concerned GonziPN’s camp is clearly in disaccord with the renegade sipper of teas. Insofar as method is concerned the jibe is less effective. When, after all, is a Private Members’ Bill useful in this duopolistic excuse for a parliament of ours if not in this kind of situation when it is patently obvious that none of the two formations supposedly representing the people seem to have an interest in putting before the assembly the largest elephent in the national hall? Bollocks to “I do not agree with the method”. Of course you don’t Lawrence. Even (and I stress that even) the conniving ginger boy in opposition recognises the use of the Private Member’s Bill although admittedly his intended use thereof was the closest time ever that politics could be described as being dyslexic.

In secundis there is the “very serious matter” business (as opposed to the comic matter of the price of oil, the hilarious matter of the White Rocks Complex tender process and the side-splitting matter of the barriers to electoral reform posed by PLPN). Indeed divorce is a serious matter requiring serious and informed debate. A serious and informed debate includes an end that is a final decision on whether it is to become law or not and not the abstract debate based on mental masturbation and catholic smugness that has dominated the island for nigh twenty years. So yes, Gonzi is right in describing the subject as “serious”. Contrary to all impressions, Gonzi & PN – two of the branches of the uncomfortable trinity of Gonzi & PN & Renegades – still do not have an official position on divorce. Have we been given a clue to a possible “official position” for PN MPs? Instead Gonzi is telling us that GonziPn still has to refine this political opportunity before launching the counterattack.

The build up has already started because in tertio GonziPN does not hesitate to clearly and unequivocally declare that JPO “took a personal initiative” (bang) that is “based on his personal position” (bang, bang) “which was well known” (bandage), so “his position did not surprise anyone” (bandage). Of course JPOs position did not surprise anyone. He almost gets away with it, he does this Gonzi. The “he ain’t heavy, he’s my brother” approach focuses on the content and away from the earlier gaffe regarding the method. Not so bloody surprising eh? So you all expected a Private Members’ Bill introducing divorce right? But wait. That’s not what you are saying. You are saying that you are not surprised that JPO has a diametrically opposed position to the GonziPN mainstream and that he has backstabbed the whole parliamentary group with this bill without so much as a “by your leave”. No shit Sherlock.

And that brings us to Gonzi’s last tirade. He did say that the subject is important (and serious) so “the electorate should have the opportunity to express itself after being informed”. An enigmatic sentence from the Sphinx would have been simpler to solve. You can of course understand it in the sense that in this country the regulation of divorce has the same perceived moral weight as say the introduction of the death sentence, the legalisation of abortion and the legalisation of marijuana. From that perspective it is probably understandable that every step of the way is transparent to the electorate as does not happen in other areas such as the awarding of land to foreigners, or the partitioning of electoral clout by the two main parties. So we will have a debate – and what a debate that promises to be – over the summer and presumably over the first months following the resumption of parliament after summer.

For good times, for bad times

The hidden bomb in this recognition of the importance of the electorate is one that has not been reckoned hitherto by the liberal advocates – the abrogative referendum. That’s a referendum proposed by the people (or an interest group) purposely to abrogate a law that has been enacted by parliament. And this is why divorce is a serious subject. Unless the argument is won convincingly explaining that divorce is a “right” of an important minority in this country while recognising that a majority of this country are still free to practice their religious beliefs and not use that right (also watch out for the faux laiques – against divorce because of the damage to the social fabric), unless that is done we risk having the shortest-lived divorce legislation in history. And that too could be thanks to a smug section of Gonzi’s PN.

Finally Gonzi’s comments are reconciliatory. Once again Jeffrey is the naughty boy who is tolerated by the slim majority PN. Whether such magnanimity is due to the thin line of parliamentary majority held by Gonzi’s rainbow party is another question. It is important for GonziPN to seem to be unwavered by this latest backstabbing setback. True, this time the party has changed what seemed to be a slip into a golden opportunity to trump the empty words of Muscat’s progressives who are left cycling in thin air but once again the fruits of PN’s rag-tag assemblage before the election are being sown. No matter – everybody can be carried on the bandwagon – after all “he ain’t heavy, he’s my Jeffrey”.

The road is long
With many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where
Who knows where
But I’m strong
Strong enough to carry him
He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother

So on we go
His welfare is of my concern
No burden is he to bear
We’ll get there
For I know
He would not encumber me

If I’m laden at all
I’m laden with sadness
That everyone’s heart
Isn’t filled with the gladness
Of love for one another.

It’s a long, long road
From which there is no return
While we’re on the way to there
Why not share
And the load
Doesn’t weigh me down at all
He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother.

He’s my brother
He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother

Divorce – The Private Members' Bill

So the breaking news has it that Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has submitted a Private Members’ Bill for the introduction of divorce. It’s a bolt out of the blue (or the fringe blue) and it would be good to see what we do know about the facts until now and what we could speculate about:

  1. Sources from the PN have told the Times that this was a personal initiative of JPO and was not discussed at the level of the PN parliamentary group. Will the PN keep its distance from the bill? Will it claim ownership of the initiative? Are any of these two questions relevant as to whether the bill has any hope of becoming law?
  2. The bill will not be discussed/voted upon before summer recess which gives the PLPN enough reflection time (and time to gauge the reaction) until the re-entry after summer. A well timed bill from that aspect one must say.
  3. Vote-wise we should definitely have PL’s MP’s given the freedom to vote as their conscience tells them. From this point of view PL will have the carpet swept from under its feet. The bluff of the “progressive party” with no real clear stand on the introduction of divorce is being called before the next election. The “divorce” promise will hopefully not be a conning addendum in the catch-all excuses for a manifesto come next election.
  4. Equally we could finally get a clear picture of what the PN makes of this kind of subject without either the hedging or the ayatollah style pronunciation depending on the interlocutor.
  5. AD has already welcomed the bill and congratulated JPO. No prizes for guessing where there votes would go should they make it to parliament (highly unlikely given the current attitude to electoral system reform).
  6. The dice are cast for the opening of a practical debate on the introduction of divorce with an actual aim and deadline – the vote on the Private Bill.

Well done JPO. Of course the bets are now open to discuss whether JPO’s move was another renegade mission or a convenient PN move that allows it to keep its distance and act with two heads – the mainstream line (still not ready to introduce divorce) and the renegade marginals prepared to accomodate a more liberal philosophy. Rainbow politics once again? If so hats off to Macchiavelli.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Smart Brains, Stupid Balls, Banned Campaigns

Maybe the furore is catchy. Maybe, just maybe, the fine line between artistic expression and public information notices is not so clear in advertising. It only just happens that the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK has banned two adverts by popular clothing company DIESEL. The problem is visual and not, as one would have been led to think at a first viewing/reading the message portrayed. I had liked this campaign ever since I first spotted it at the DIESEL shop in Milan. It seems to focus on the different between “smart” and “stupid” – two not so abstracts stereotypes being compared. If you believe the campaign DIESEL is rooting for “stupid” who apparently has “balls” rather than “brain” and is therefore preferable in some way. The advertising agency did not oppose this apparent glorification of “stupidity” but was forced to ban the adverts on the basis of nudity/insinuations thereof. Shocking.

In the first of the two sample banned images we have here,  “stupid” woman meets security camera. She has gone through the painstaking labour of procuring a ladder and climbing up to the camera at torso level in order to flash her mammaries at a lifeless source. Stupid porn? I wouldn’t go that far. Provocative maybe but these days the penny falls on the side of those who would rather be protected from having their brain cells challenged with the unconventional.

Which brings us to the second option. “Stupid” (and sexy) here is oblivious to the dangers prowling behind her and readying for the kill. It is not very clear whether the “brains” that come as a standard accessory on “smart” would have been of any help in this scenario given that “eyes in the back of the head” or “retrovision” are still under development in even the most advanced versions of homo sapiens. In any case “stupid” here is ignoring the presence of its mammaries and is peering over them in an apparent attempt to photograph the contents of her underwear – which, judging by even the most precocious of bits of received information (viz. Barbie or Sindy) should not be much seeing as how the particular sex in question is blessed with a neat packaging of sexual organs on the interior of the human frame. We are not privy to any information as to whether “stupid” actually stole the camera and is performing the infamous prank that is as old as kodak of proceeding to waste the film with photos of behinds and genitalia – which admittedly would be quite a “stupid” thing to do.

Let’s face it.Tthere’s about as much of a pornographic element in these photos as you get with a  newsreader with a particularly daring décolleté.  If anything, socially speaking, the worst message being given out by DIESEL, if taken literally, is the imperative order to whoever reads these ads to “be stupid”. It’s meant to provoke. It’s an ad. They do not seriously require you to become stupid overnight and take to capturing breasts or genitalia on moving or static film. Then again that last fact is obvious to the smart people who see these ads. The larger majority might warrant protection from the danger of taking the message too literally (or from getting sexually provoked by the imagery involved) and that would be too much “stupid” to handle.

source: Diesel genitals and breast adverts banned for “serious offence”.

The (non-broadcast) Advertising Guidelines (UK)
The (Broadcast – TV & Radio) Codes (UK)

The Advertising Standards Authority said 33 people had complained that the adverts were offensive and unsuitable for children. It ruled the adverts breached responsible advertising and decency guidelines and should not appear again in poster form.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Simply über alles

Were they not absolutely fantastic? When they trounced the hapless English team by four goals to one (almost to two) many were those who would have easily subscribed to the “even my vindaloo eating granny could do that” philosophy. In short we were prepared to concede that the merit of the four goal drubbing of the Three Lions had little to do with some kind of footballing superiority of the mannschaft and more to do with the absolute disregard to the notions of basic football exhibited by Postman Pat’s XI.

Here at J’accuse we had been viewing the battle between Good and Evil (it’s a matter of perspective) as a fight for the right to be soundly given a lesson in football by the princes of South American football (there can only be one king and he normally comes from Rio or Pernambuco).

Yet here we are today looking back in awe and disbelief as we contemplate the complete and utter capitulation of the mullet plagued team from the City of Good Winds. It must have been an ill wind that carried Bastian Schweinsteiger’s cross lightly but surely over the rudderless orphans of Javier Zanetti and Walter Samuel as the young Muller soared over the ill-organised ranks of the Argie excuse for a defence  and gave the ball a sufficient twist of momentum and direction to overcome any last ditch attempt from the pony-tailed guardian to keep it out of his nest. There would be more to follow as the young German team refused to be dazzled by the supposèd new kings of entertainment football.

The secret to German success turned out to be no secret at all. You could tell as the game unfolded that they were doing what they could do best – they kept it simple. They passed the ball when a pass was needed, crossed it right when the cross was begging and shot the ball into the net with a beguiling simplicity that left anyone watching the match absolutely gobsmacked. You could not believe it when Klose was busy somersaulting in the air much to the chagrin of  Lionel and Carlos. You rubbed your eyes in disbelief as Schweinsteiger and Lahm ran riddles round the albiceleste men. Like Uruguay before them these men had not read the script. And thank heavens for that.

You gotta love ze germans

For yes, in an ideal world the World Cup final should have been a matter between the two constellations of verdeoro and albiceleste with the supposedly cynical Europeans having packed their bags for home long ago. But that is the ideal world of press, precedent and hype that fails to take account of the truth of the game. The truth is that if it is in the game, it’s in the game. When the ball gets stroked around with such gusto and flair and with an ambition to prove oneself (as against believing that just wearing the yellow or blue and white shirt is enough) with every tackle, with every pressing and with every true ball. When the ball seems to join in the fun fluttering obeyingly from foot to foot to goal with the ease of an alphabet recited then there truly is the secret that opens the doors to the Olympian height of world cup victory.

We have a German team to thank for this revelation. For the truth that football is beyond words and hype and commercialism. It all boils down to the simple rules of the game that dictate that to win a match you have to score more than your opponents, pass the ball at the right time, cross it believing it will get to the feet of your attacker and slip it in with the calm and certainty that this is the most important kick of the ball in your life. Each and every one of them. Calmly executed, perfectly performed, world Class playing.

Simple above all.

Out and About

So the Selecao is out. It was a fifty fifty match but in the end the team with a stronger and deeper reserve of personality won. You would not believe that the Felipe Melo own goal brought the result to a draw. You could see it in the eyes of Snejder, Robben & Co. they could feel the victory coming. Melo, Cesar and Luisao began to practice the sad faces long before the game was jeopardised. In the end Brasil would go out to two set pieces, to their own inabilityy to continue believing that they could outclass the Oranje in the second half as they did in the first and to the crass imbecility and unprofessionalism of Juventus’ 25 million euro star – Felipe Melo. What was he thinking?

Soccer romantics would not mind the Netherlands going all the way now vindicating the near misses of Cruyff’s generation in’74 and ’78. There’s a few underdogs to reckon with and as I type Africa’s dream and the historic champions face each other for the right to challenge Holland’s cynical XI. J’accuse will throw it’s full support behind the winner of tonights match – the sympathy ratings are high. As the iTV commentator said “a country takes on a continent”. One last comment (call it sour grapes if you like) but when did the Japanese ref plan to book Van Bommel? 4 cardable offences and kicks from behind went unnoticed. No prob. Next stop Brasil ‘2014 and I’m planning to watch that world cup in the host country.

Bonde Brasil Copa 2010
Image by RodrigoLobo.com via Flickr
Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta