Credit should be given where credit is due. Although I’ve never actually met Owen Bonnici, Labour’s affable spokesman for Youth and Culture who claims that we are ‘good friends’ in his letter to this paper, I imagine that we could, in fact, hit it off fairly well. He comes across as an honest and straightforward guy who avoids the big-fish-in-small-pond arrogance which characterises too many people in Maltese public life.
On the censorship issue he is, true, attempting to be proactive (which is rather unusual for Labour) and appears to be interested in engaging with ideas (which is rather unusual for Malta’s pragmatic political operators). That’s a promise of progress on two fronts, so perhaps we should count our blessings.
But it is precisely when it comes to the articulation of ideas that I am disappointed with Bonnici’s take on censorship in particular and with Labour’s ongoing metamorphosis more generally. The bottom line is that neither Bonnici nor Labour can avoid engaging with content by choosing to focus solely on form.
If Labour’s progressive identity is to mean anything at all, the party must gear up to do two things. First, it must be prepared to go to the heart of the issues it thinks are important for this country, especially if they are sensitive and complex. Second, it must start engaging in intelligent discourse with the public. I have always thought that political parties’ educational role has been severely underestimated in a country in which they occupy centre stage in a very aggressive manner. The results, unfortunately, are far from encouraging.
Back to censorship and content. There are two distinct issues surrounding the Realtà case. One is that Mark Camilleri has been arraigned as the editor of the paper – a question of sentencing. Owen Bonnici has unequivocally stated that he thinks that this is unacceptable. In doing so he joins several people (including many of those who have condemned the story).
The other – far more contentious – issue is the story itself.
Intentionally or otherwise the author has challenged Maltese society on many fronts. The story cuts through that society, it puts one finger in that society’s wounds and points another finger at that society’s complexes. And it raises a crucial question – is blasphemy acceptable in a country which still largely defines itself in religious terms? In short, this story has raised a hornets’ nest because it talks about Malta.
To paraphrase Minister Cristina, what exactly does the fallout from the publication of this story tell us about “the maturity of Maltese society in 2010”? My view is that the variety of reactions presents a rather complex picture. Furthermore, it has raised important questions about Maltese society’s views on the role of its authors and their responsibilities in society. Should they be conveying ‘messages’? Can they be confused with their characters?
While I’m certainly not asking Owen to ‘appreciate’ the story, I’d say that he missed an opportunity by failing to engage with it and I am disappointed that he shied away from doing so by dismissing it as a collection of rude words. Culture ministers and the opposition’s shadow spokesmen on culture should avoid the temptation of adopting a merely legalistic approach to important issues like censorship. Parliamentary committees, court judgments and legal definitions are only part of that process.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Search:
MALTATODAY
BUSINESSTODAY
Download MaltaToday Sunday issue front page in pdf file format
