Piss Christ was a photograph by American photographer Andres Serrano taken in the late 1980s. Serrano, whose photography centres on his serious obsession with bodily fluids, produced the photo of a crucifix in urine.

That might sound like nothing more than a tasteless adolescent prank. But not so, it seems, to the chattering classes who were gushing with praise for the “masterpiece” – to the extent that Serrano went on to claim two grants from the American taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts.

Pity the poor Christians: they not only get their beliefs mocked, they actually have to pay for the privilege. And for some strange reason, the proponents of strict separation between Church and state, who would be out in force if public funds were used for exhibiting a crucifix in a public space, were completely mum as long as it was submerged in urine.

 

The excuse of ‘artistic freedom’

My thoughts turned to this case on reading the Labour Government’s response to critics of its latest proposal to repeal legal provisions criminalising the vilification of religion, amongst other things. The aim of the repeal, it said in response, is linked to freedom of artistic expression.

If, as Orson Welles reminded us, 30 years of warfare, terror and bloodshed under the Borgias still produced Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, just imagine what the harmless repeal of a few articles of our Criminal Code could produce. Joseph Muscat could go down in history as some sort of Lorenzo de' Medici, commissioning masterpieces for posterity. After the impression we’ve given to the world that we’re ready to sell something as central to our identity as citizenship, we’re in the company of principled countries with sophisticated and refined cultural tastes.

Seriously, since when did this government earn a mandate to speak out on artistic freedom? From what grand artworks are we deprived while the prohibition is in place? Who is the artist who feels especially threatened by it? And why make this particular distinction: should artists (however you define that category) enjoy greater rights than non-artists?

 

Respect, in the widest sense

This is nothing more than an example of the government’s playing to the civil rights gallery. The Roman Catholic faith is still Malta’s official religion. That is still in the first chapter of the Constitution (despite the government having a majority to repeal it), the same chapter that covers our national symbols such as our anthem and flag.

And the Criminal Code will still retain provisions criminalising “contempt of the person of the President of Malta”. ‘Contempt’ is far less serious than ‘vilify’ but that particular provision stays. Who knows – maybe the government did not receive any appeals on behalf of ‘artistic freedom’ in this regard.

All this comes at a time when offensive expression (in the widest sense of the word) has become punishable – and rightly so because, no matter how important and fundamental freedom of expression is, nothing is gained by being offensive or fomenting hate against other races, ethnicities, sexual orientation or gender. Why not religion if, to so many people, it is not simply a set of beliefs one happens to hold but is fundamental to who they are?

 

Not fundamentalism

These days, there is always the risk that by taking up the cause in favour of religion one will be branded a ‘fundamentalist’. This is nothing more than an attempt at smearing by association, a very stretched association at that. From what I can tell, those who would want to retain the current provision are genuine believers in personal freedoms including that of expression. Nothing like the armed groups that are currently plaguing North Africa and the Middle East.

It’s a position which recognises that, as in anything else, respect for the beliefs of others and for what they hold dear is important for the well-being of society and it involves imposing limits. It is high time that we stopped thinking of our quality of life as being simply a question of material development or token policies (from culture and the arts to civil rights) and instead kept in mind that a sense of serenity and lack of tension is of benefit to everyone.