‘Stitching’ production team initiate proceedings before European Court of Human Rights
They are seeking a declaration from the ECHR that the ban on the play constituted a violation of fundamental human rights – in particular, that of freedom of expression.
28 June 2013, 12:00am
Davinia Hamilton
Davinia Hamilton
1 min read
The controversial play has been performed in several countries
The Maltese production team and cast behind the proposed production of the play Stitching in Malta, have said they have initiated proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
They said they are seeking a declaration from the ECHR that the ban on the play constituted a violation of fundamental human rights - in particular, that of freedom of expression.
"We are doing this after having exhausted all domestic judicial remedies available to us in Malta," they said.
The controversial play, written by Scottish playwright Anthony Neilson, has been performed in several countries. But its 2009 ban in Malta prompted an uproar over censorship, to the extent that former Culture Minister Mario de Marco moved a law for the self-regulation of theatre productions.
The resulting effect is that the ban no longer holds, since the censorship board which initially deemed the play unsuitable for performance had been dismantled under the new self-regulation regime.
In the first judgement, Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon had said the censorship board acted correctly that the values of a country could not be turned on their head simply in the name of freedom of expression.
He said it was unacceptable in a "democratic society founded on the rule of law" for any person, no matter what they did, to be allowed to swear in public - even in a theatre as part of a script.
The two-actor play is about a couple struggling to deal with the loss of their child.
•
@ eugenespapiano: To continue on your tone; who knows what will happen if a Court decision is taken now? There have been a few 'strange' Court decisions given during the last three months!!
•
Some have claimed that they find such a play offensive;
there is a solution though ; don't go and see the play!
I remember the Diocesan Film Revue when the , but they rarely classified a film as Universal and the majority of adult films were not classified as AO but AR , ARR , or H and the more a film was criticised the more people went to see them. Even the educational film Helga was classified as H (bad for everyone)Come on the year is 2013 and I suggest another play to be shown on stage Oh Calcutta!
•
Some have claimed that they find such a play offensive;
there is a solution though ; don't go and see the play!
I remember the Diocesan Film Revue when the , but they rarely classified a film as Universal and the majority of adult films were not classified as AO but AR , ARR , or H and the more a film was criticised the more people went to see them. Even the educational film Helga was classified as H (bad for everyone)Come on the year is 2013 and I suggest another play to be shown on stage Oh Calcutta!
•
Good Luck. I am sure you will have a fairer hearing at the European Court and definitely greater understanding. The conservatism that the PN put Malta in during the last 25 years is striking and will remain a milestone in Malta's cultural history.
•
@edwenzu : what you said is irrelevant and out of context to what this 'dinosaur ' of a judge decreed regarding freedom of expression
•
JUSTICE ZAMMIT McKEON is absolutely right that freedom of expression does not imply that one can swear and carry out immoral perverse acts in public. There is no need for these acts to portray feelings - of course if the actors are good !!!
•
He said it was unacceptable in a "democratic society founded on the rule of law" for any person, no matter what they did, to be allowed to swear in public - even in a theatre as part of a script.----
By the same argument, this dinosaur of a judge should be banning the majority of hollywood movies from cinemas and television. So, where is he?
