The
Front Against Censorship has handed MPs a document proposing the abolition of
censorship in Malta.
The group said that explicit and mandatory censorship of the arts and
entertainment was being imposed mainly through the courts as a result of
outdated laws; the Malta Broadcasting Authority, the Board of Film and
Stage Classification and also the University of Malta which is
supposed to nurture artistic freedom and not suppress it.
It is highly unacceptable and even offensive by EU standards, let
alone by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that censorship is
prevailing in Malta of the 21st century.
The group said it was not referring to the censorship of hate-speech
which maliciously belittled specific groups in society, but about
censorship which only seemed to defend and uphold the morality of the
predominant religion, or any other religion for that matter.
We believe that the Catholic Church has a right to preach its
values to society openly and freely. We will defend that right should it
be denied in some form or other, directly or indirectly. We will never
agree, however, that the values of the Church are the values of Maltese
society in its entirety, despite the fact that the Roman Catholic faith
is predominant. Individuals should have the right to express themselves
in a free and unfettered manner in the same way that the Chursh is free
to preach its values openly and freely.
The Front proposed the repeal of Article 163 of the Criminal Code,
which states that:
Whosoever by words, gestures, written
matter, whether printed or not, or pictures or by some other visible
means, vilifies the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion which is the
religion of Malta, or gives offence to the Roman Catholic Apostolic
Religion by vilifying those who profess such religion or its
ministers, or anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated
to, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic worship, shall, on
conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to six
months.
Similarly, it proposed the removal of article 164 of the Criminal
Code, which imposes similar constraints on criticising other religions
recognised by the State. This article states that:
Whosoever commits any of the acts referred
to in the last preceding article against any cult tolerated by law,
shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one
to three months.
The group said it was calling for a change in the definition of
pornography in article 208 of the Criminal Code. Under the current law,
that which is considered obscene and pornographic is decided by a
particular parliamentary committee. The only time this committee met was
in 1975.
The definition given was Work is obscene or pornographic when its
dominant feature is the exploitation of, or unnecessary emphasis on,
sex, criminality, fear, cruelty and violence. We propose that this
definition should be changed to any product which graphically depicts
sexual acts with the intent of causing sexual arousal. The distribution
and production of pornography should not be illegal as long as it does
not involve human trafficking, the abuse of minors, the exploitation of
the human person or any other criminal acts defined by law.
The group called for the repeal of article 7 of the Press Act which
states that:
Whosoever, by any means mentioned in
article 3, directly or indirectly, or by the use of equivocal
expressions, shall injure public morals or decency shall be liable
on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months
or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.
It also called for the abolition of the role of a centrally-appointed
Classification Board for theatre performances and film, which has the
authority to block and censor and to establish a set of criteria for
self-classification in the performing arts based on a consultation
exercise among the performing arts community. All classification systems
(including self-classification for performances and classification for
cinema) should be based on a list of established and transparent
criteria, which should be made publicly available, and which should be
re-evaluated from time to time in the light of international
developments in these art forms.
Lastly, it called for the removal of article 13 of the Broadcasting
Act which states that:
nothing is included in the programmes which
offends against religious sentiment, good taste or decency or is
likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to
be offensive to public feeling.
The Front said this should be replaced with a paragraph which allows
such mentioned content from 10pm onwards.