The Minister for Justice, Culture and Local Councils, Owen Bonnici, recently welcomed ECHR’s judgement regarding the 2010-banning of the play Stitching being performed locally. He commented that “At the time (2010) we were completely against the decision and once in Government we radically reformed existing laws to increase artistic freedom.”
Personally, I would have refrained from writing such a sweeping statement because it is obvious that Minister Bonnici has not read the 17-page judgement handed down by the European Court of Human Rights on May 15, 2018. As for the play, I do believe that it will be up to posterity to establish its literary worth and merits or otherwise. However, I can understand the actors and producer wishing to stage this play sighing with relief.
Nevertheless, as an academic, I cannot but comment on the Europe’s Cultural agenda to de-Christianize the continent. Since Stitching was penned more than a decade ago, a number of political changes have taken place. Rightly or wrongly, western art and literature have begun being associated with the attempt to de-Christianize Europe.
Over the years, from all quarters there has been a persistent wave of well-organized and well-paid onslaught on Europe’s Christian values and traditions. Europe and the USA invested money to push forward this cultural agenda. In academia, one was considered a nullity if one did not support this move.
Now, we are experiencing the demographic pinch of this recklessness which has deadlocked Europe. The problem here is not these policies but the arbitrariness and Marxist relativism used by those who adopted such an agenda in order to achieve their aim.
Europe began presenting liberty of expression as a fundamental human right. In fact, it is. But this has led to abuse. Freedom of expression carries with it responsibility as well as consequences. But instead of focusing on these aspects, Europe focused on politicizing freedom of expression. In Malta, we ended up enacting laws to comply with this European agenda; the right for vilification is a case in point; one which is now haunting us. After the recent horrendous attack on a police officer, we have been hearing remarks from those same politicians, who had triumphantly presented the right of vilification as an expression of freedom, that it is not correct to vilify the police. The Prime Minister too went on to declare that Institutions should be respected.
The bottom line is that no rational being would today continue to consider such issues a naïve plea for freedom. Today, these issues appear to be part of a wider political motion to attack and ridicule Christianity.
The ‘blasphemous’ content in Stitching is portrayed as art and literature. Perhaps, this is how it was seen some decades back. But through their materialistic approach and the new climate created by these Marxists there are many who are of a different thought. I am stating this because many view blasphemous content as an attack against the Christian God. But what about a blasphemous content attacking the Muslim or Jewish God? Many fear that this argument is going to change. The right to freedom of literary expression will be put aside and the issue would become one where Europe is Islamophobic. Europe’s colonial past will be invoked and the Islamic world will consider all this as part of a Western agenda to ridicule its Islamic identity. In brief, Europe will be accused that she is still expressing her colonial mind-set and Christianity’s hatred towards Islam.
And what about the Jews? Here the argument would be the same. Islamophobia would be replaced by anti-Semitism. Incidentally, there is no such thing as a secular Jewish State. Israel is a religious, theocratic State. The concept and identity of being a Jew is completely religious. Even the term Jewish is purely a religious reference, meaning a person who believes and adheres to Judaism.
When, I was young, I was taught that Jews, Muslims and Christians share the same God. Judaism, Christianity and Islamism are three monotheistic religions. Now, I am starting to doubt this and agreeing with those, even those within Christianity and Roman Catholicism, who are arguing that it is not the same God. Beyond any doubt, in Europe, the treatment reserved for the God of the Christians, in contemporary literature and the arts, is different to that reserved for the God of the Muslims and the Jews.
If one attempts to ridicule the Muslim God, as in Salman Rushdie’s case, with his book Satanic Verses, one would risk his or her life. Rushdie is Muslim, or better still an Iranian Shiite, who was put through hell. Yet, as has happened in the past, if similar material is produced by Christians, , the lives of Europeans or Westerners living in the Muslim world would be endangered. The same holds for the Jews. The State in Israel is not only set against Muslims but also against Christian communities that have been living there for centuries.
The truth is that issues of de-Christianization in Europe are leading to a situation where those who created this agenda are experiencing repercussions. This agenda was tried in the Soviet Union but failed miserably. Today’s agenda is being backed by American money. Physical intimidation was the tool by which the Soviet Union pushed on. Intimidation has remained but only its façade has changed. Unfortunately, this format has gradually seeped into our midst. Silencing comes from psychological or economic pressures. The most common way of achieving this nowadays is through the media – and what we now term as hate speech. This is an American phenomenon. I am informed that in the recent past the American Embassy held seminars to train youngsters in this art. So while we are told about the value of freedom of speech, those who preached it, ended up teaching methods on how to silence individuals, resulting in the outcome that hatred in the West has increased not decreased.
Demographic studies are showing that this new climate in the West has increased the hatred towards Islam. Today, this is normally expressed towards the presence of foreign immigrants in the various European countries. More importantly, the anti-Muslim migrant sentiment is stronger among those not practising a faith and non-believers rather than the churchgoers. This may appear as a contradiction but demographic studies are starting to prove this point. Therefore, while attendance in Christian churches is decreasing, there is an increase among the non-churchgoers to identify themselves far more strongly with Christianity. This identification is then manifested openly by being hostile towards migrants who are predominantly non-Christian, in particular, if they are from Muslim countries.
In part, this explains the rise of the extreme right in Europe. I often point out to my students, that unlike onehundred years ago, the contemporary Western World is only experiencing one type of extreme group. This is the Far Right. A hundred years ago, the Extreme Right was balanced by the presence of the Extreme Left. The Extreme Left is no more. The irony of it all is that demographic studies are showing that typologies of voters, who a hundred years ago would have voted for extreme right parties, today are supporting a type of cultural Marxism that is destroying the continent of Europe. On the other hand, those type of voters who a hundred years ago would have championed a social or a working class agenda have also become Right wingers.
This is leading to a convulsive political centre. Those parties in the centre, who historically were on the right, are losing their voting platform because they have joined now a Marxist agenda. The Northern cultural agenda can be presented as some sort of cultural victory for Malta, but the number of individuals, who a decade ago, were supportive of these issues, are now disillusioned because of the political irresponsibility that all this has brought about.
The ECHR expressed these sentiments in its 17 page document. For sure, the sentence was certainly not flattering and highlights the various shortcomings of our country’s modus operandi referring to the inadequacies at the different levels including basic issues and the law in question. The ending statement of judge Küris makes a brilliant reading. I strongly advise the readers of my blog to have a look at the Concurring Opinion of Judge Küris, which is available on the internet. Küris wrote: “Having voted together with my distinguished colleagues in finding a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of four applicants, I am nevertheless not fully satisfied with the reasoning leading to this finding…” and goes on to detail the why and wherefores which make most enlightening reading, and prove the above reflections.