Multiculti in North Korea

Most of the people who claim they are against multiculturalism, in reality don’t know what the word really means. Forget the debates about cultural relativism, citizenship or whatever policy is being drafted, for them it’s the simplistic notion of “people of different cultures living in the same country”.

For the purposes of this particular blog, the word multiculturalism is referring to the simplistic definition mentioned above.

For those who claim they are “against multiculturalism”, I have bad news. You’re not going to stop it. Forget it. You can vote in as many far-right parties as you want, your hated multiculti is here to stay.

Multiculturalism has been with us since the end of time. The only thing that changed in the last few decades is that it’s happening quicker. Globalization brought with it faster and cheaper travel and communications. It doesn’t take a month to travel from Malta to Australia anymore and you can date a Chinese girl you met on the Internet. You find Turkish kebabs in Sweden and McDonalds in Iraq. So on and so forth.

All sorts of genocides and atrocities tried to stop it: all of them failed. There still are a lot of Armenians in Turkey, Jews in Germany, Serbs in Bosnia and Tutsi in Rwanda. There are ethnic, religious and cultural minorities in every country in the world.

Except for one.

The only hope for the anti-multiculti is in a land where the sun only shines if the Supreme Leader wakes up in a good mood, and where thanks to the heavily censored media the residents think the National football team had won matches when in reality it had lost. It’s a country where most people believe the Supreme Leader was miraculously born in a well, and everyone enjoys free speech as long as it involves only praise to the leader.

The Supreme Leader of this country has also protected it from your hated multiculti. Only a few thousand people enter the country each year, most of whom are diplomats. Only one tourist agency in the world can take you there, only if you leave from China after acquiring really hard to get special permits. The borders are heavily protected and if you’re a tourist you don’t really have much opportunity to meet the locals. You can’t infiltrate the country through the Internet either, because what the people have access to is decided by the Supreme Leader whom everybody loves since it’s illegal not to love him.

Nobody comes in, nobody goes out.

You want to stop multiculti? Go for it brainchild.

Just one little advice from my side if you don’t mind: The only reason the people in this single-culture paradise are not leaving is that they can’t.

 

Make Love Not Porn

It is accepted by many that the influence of the Catholic church on Maltese politics is not only present like it is in other democratic countries, but goes too far. This can be viewed by a series of censorships, as well as criminal charges on people who ‘vilified religion’ or used vulgar language in artistic works. It is all the more evident in the church’s tough stand against the introduction of divorce in Malta, the absence of which is only present in the all so Catholic Philippines.

However now we are facing a situation when a local MP that gets elected on the ticket of a Party that promotes itself as progressive wants stricter laws on consenting adults who like to watch other consenting adults having sex in front of a camera. Dr Adrian Vassallo goes to the extent of expressing envy towards theocratic countries such as Iran due to their stronghold on laws against religion.

Needless to say this is ridiculous. However even worse than that, I see the recurrent situation where we are discussing prohibition or not for things such as pornography without going into the issue itself. Waving farewell to secularity, people like Dr Vassallo find the main reason for opposing pornography in the bible or other religious texts.

In reality, pornography can have a negative effect on society if approached with the wrong attitude. However the reasons for this are not religious and the answer is definitely not prohibition.

I listened to an interesting discussion from Cindy Gallop. Ms Gallop is not very sympathetic towards pornography. However she did not derive her conclusions by reading the bible. Rather these were based on her own sexual experiences with men, conversations on the issue as well as browsing porn sites.

According to Ms Gallop what she terms as ‘the porn world’ presents a different reality towards sex than ‘the real world’. In her website http://www.makelovenotporn.com she explains these different realities. For example, the porn world gives the impression that women love having men cumming on their faces. In reality, the majority of women don’t. Another false impression is that a woman having fun while touching a man reaches an orgasm after another without having anyone rubbing her clitoris. In reality, things don’t work that way.

What Ms Gallop advises is not censorship (and let’s face it, with today’s technology cencorship is not only a nasty thing but also impossible to accomplish) but education. Women should learn that they are not obliged to (for example) accept men cumming on their faces or into their mouth. Refusing to do such things does not mean that she is a lesser woman in bad, because that is what the porn world has teached her partner. Neither should a man expect it.

Some men, especially those with a low self esteem are harmed by porn because they feel different, even inferior to the men performing pornography. They should learn that the reason their partner does not have an orgasm every two minutes for hours on end is not because they are inadequate but because it is the natural thing that happens when people are having sex. It is the porn world that is wrong, not them.

Censorship hurts in more than one way. On one side it is arrogant, theocratic and undermines democratic principles. On another side it prevents well intentioned and informed people from teaching the truth and exposing reality. Thanks to people like Dr Vassallo, we still have the porn but not the educaton.

I would also warn Dr Vassallo that if he really decides moving to Iran he might feel shocked by the fact that despite the strict prohibition he will still find access not only to pornography but also well organised brothels.

 

Beauty is not the Point

I’m no art critic neither will I pretend to be one. I actually like the monument in Luqa that has become popular as well as notorious for the simple reason that it can resemble a dick. I don’t like it for that particular reason. My untrained eye sees a blend of my favourite colours as well as the curves. It’s the same reason why I like the design of most Mosques.

However, none of this is actually relevant. The reason why I don’t want that monument removed has nothing to do with its beauty or ugliness. At the risk of sounding arrogant and proud, the reason why I want that monument to stay there is dignity, my own dignity.

I’m agnostic and do not recognise the Pope as my leader by any means. He is just another human being who decided to visit our islands. Of course he is the leader of the Catholic church, and the majority of the Maltese are Catholic. But that makes absolutely no difference. I may be in a minority but that doesn’t make me a lesser human. The pope, my next door neighbor and myself are equal. No one deserves any preferential treatment.

Why should we remove something because it resembles a dick since it might offend the pope (though I seriously doubt whether he looks in a different direction when he pees, worse still if he gets an erection at the same time). If some people and the major of Luqa didn’t like the monument, they had ample time to remove it. Why now? All of this at the expense of making us look ridiculous in the eyes of the whole world.

A few months ago, an atheist woman in Italy won a case against the government because she stated crucifixes offend her and scare her son. This had repercussions in Malta even sending a couple of fanatics in hysteria. The woman who filed the case did have a point, however I still disagree with the decision of granting her money in compensation for having her son exposed to crucifixes in school. We can’t remove everything that might offend someone. What offended me about the whole story was the reaction by some Catholics, both in Italy and Malta. With what arrogance do they tell me and other people of a different belief or no belief to leave our country if we don’t like crucifixes?

In practice whether to remove the offending monument or crucifixes or not makes absolutely no difference to me. They can even replace the monument with a large crucifix. However, symbolically this has a meaning. Yes, to have people who believes this country belongs to them bullying myself and others around as if we got the plague is unacceptable. Removing a piece of art because a mortal like me decided to visit my country is unacceptable too.

 

Censorship, Vulgar Words and Li Tkisser Sewwi

The controversial prose ‘Li Tkisser Sewwi’ published on Realta newslatter is far from my literary tastes. However beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and my opinion on it does not increase or decrese its literary merit. Actually literary merit is not the issue here.

The main reason that conservative authorities got into a frenzy is the fact that it consists a lot of vulgar words. In reality the vulgar (obscene or whatever) words in the piece are more than appropriate. The character described is a low life ignorant pervert. How should the author make him speak? Saying please and thank you? Why not make him offer his seat for elderly people and pregnant women on the bus?

If I’m describing a white supremacist isn’t obvious he will use words such as ‘nigger’ or other racial slurs? Would that make me a racist because the characrer I’m describing uses such words? Definitely not, in that context those words are appropriate. If I’m describing a Gozitan old lady working ‘combini’, isn’t it obvious she will speak Gozitan dialect?

The hassle on this prose is ridiculous. Yet a person, the editor of the newsletter is being filed criminal charges that can even lead to imprisonment. And that is definitely not a non-issue.

What is even more hypocritical is the fact that such ‘obscene’ words are not only used by low life perverts, but by a much more substantial number of Maltese people. Ask any tourist what are the first words he learns from our language while visiting our country. Need I say anything more?

Maybe we feel ashamed of such people. However, denying their existance and make a criminal of a person who agreed to put their words on paper is an obscenity much more offensive than any amount of vulgar words can ever lead up to.

 

Satanic Teenage Warriors

When I was some 13 years old I discovered something that would change my life forever – Rock Music. I was immediately attracted to the guitar riffs, angst driven drumming, high pitched male vocalists, as well as the skulls on the cassette covers.

The indoctrination system soon caught up with us. They got worried about us kids listening to subtle and not so subtle Satanic messages, corrupting our fragile souls. From school we were taken to seminars to see what danger we were being exposed to. They exposed us to bands like Deicide (kill god) and I was amazed – at the guts it takes to name a band like that, as well as that of exposing such sheer lack of talent and making good money out of it. Then came Cannibal Corpse and Rotting Christ. I read their lyrics and laughed. I was just 14, but the childishness in their lyrics was too explicit. The only value these crappy bands had was the hysteria they managed to rouse in the hierarchies of the indoctrination machine.

But these are the obvious ones aren’t they? Because the most evil did not make their message that explicit. It was hidden, very subtle, yet it creeps into your mind, damaging it. You will never be the same. Led Zeppelin. I heard Stairway to Heaven the first time during one of these seminars. I didn’t really care about the ‘covert Satanic message’ cause it was the most beautiful music I had ever heard in my life.. I’ve heard the song a million times, including hearing it in reverse. The story goes that it is only when you hear the song in reverse you will hear the words ‘Sweet Satan’. Strictly speaking it’s true, you can actually hear something similar to those words, only if you had the technology necessary to listen to it in reverse. The scientifically disproven myth is that even if you hear it properly, these messages enter into your unconscious and transform you into a monster. I listened to the song a million times and the only change it made was urging me to start playing guitar, which I still do. And I don’t regret a single moment of it.

Years later, while I was at University, I thought that this crap was over. The indoctrinators must have realised they ridiculous ways only backfired, or so I thought. I was wrong. Marilyn Manson came and the self-righteous holy teachers were in a frenzy again. Thankfully they didn’t insult my intelligence by telling me about the horror of this man possessed by Satan. I was a University student. However my brother is 8 years younger than me. In fact at home we received a three-page leaflet dedicated to the ‘Anti-Christ Superstar’. I laughed. So did my parents after I calmed them down and explained to them the whole picture. Unlike what we did with Led Zeppelin neither me nor my brother listened a lot to Manson. Not because he was too ‘Satanic’ for us but because most of his music is utterly crap. In fact, I wondered where the man would be hadn’t it been for the Catholic church.

I had also discovered Rage Against The Machine and The Clash. Unlike the others mentioned these band’s lyrics did affect me. They introduced me to socialism, as did my sociology lecturers a couple of years later. I’m still a socialist today. In fact, I believe that from the establishment’s point of view, these bands are much more ‘dangerous’. They don’t ask you to worship Satan but to question authority. To seek for the truth and not remain a gullible puppet. Which is what some of us did, and the establishment lashed back, once again with censorship and character assassination. Once again they failed.

Ironically, rather than look at the past and laugh at all this folly, they are doing the same errors today, by censoring drama, prose, and even by dressing up mannequins. Worse still people are being criminally prosecuted as well as completely unjust labels of being sexist or racist when it is more than clear that it is not the case. All at a time where real sexist, homophobic and racist messages are being completely accepted. Only as long as they are transmitted to mainstream media.

 

Whose Freedom?

A very controversial topic in Malta, at this very moment, is freedom of expression. I am all out in favour of people expressing what they believe in, and that includes people with whom I totally disagree on what they have to say. However, quite frequently I’m asked: ‘Does this freedom include hate speech?’ Treating this issue is very delicate. People’s freedoms are extremely important but so is the protection of those to whom the speech is directed. Where should one draw the line?

Let’s start with what in my opinion should not even be considered as controversial – shocking and vulgar language. I find it completely ridiculous to censor something (for example the play ‘Stitching’ and ‘Realta’s newspaper) just because it contains parts or articles considered as vulgar and shocking. Who defines what terms fall into this category? Some board of whatever authority?

More controversial is offensive language. Here we are not talking about ‘nasty’ words, but words deliberately used to offend others on the basis of religion, race, sexual orientation and others. Should a Maltese Imam who compared homosexuals getting married to marrying cats and dogs be censored or face legal sanction? What about right wing extremists who call black people niggers? I know many will disagree with me on this, but I don’t believe these people should be censored or face criminal repercussions. Definitely they should be condemned, and if they aren’t it means we’re in trouble. The offended parties have the right to file libel. However they should have all the right to say it without fearing the authorities.

The next category is however different. I’m talking about what is termed as ‘fighting words’. These are used to overtly or subtly incite violence on the victims. The injured party is not just offended but threatened and put in danger. Had the Imam called for individuals or groups to harass homosexuals, or right if rightwing extremists to make a call to harass ‘niggers’, the story would have been very different.

An email that had been circulating a while ago shows a group of extremist Muslims in the UK calling for violence against a Danish cartoonist. In my opinion it is unacceptable to let these people protest and call for such action, even getting police protection for it. They are not ‘offending back’ the person who offended them. They are instigating violence towards him and his country. Though their demands are futile, intention is clear and in my opinion the protest should not only have been halted, but the ring leaders should have been filed criminal charges.

Right wing extremists sometimes also jump the line when it comes to freedom of speech. An example is the BNP who are not only allowed to voice their words, but two of them have been elected to the European Parliament. They don’t like a multicultural England, they deny the Holocaust, and even minimise what Hitler did: ‘Adolf just went a bit too far’. Disgusting as it is, I believe they have a right to say it. What they don’t have a right to is, for example, making an alliance with the Ku Klux Klan, an organisation responsible for thousands of deaths during the last hundred years, all based on racial prejudice. Asking these people their vote, telling them ‘they have the same objective but will have to use sweeter words’ is legitimising the Klan’s violence. On that basis, yes definitely the BNP should have faced criminal sanctions, even been prohibited from contesting elections.

Something that fascinates me is the comments sent daily to the online version of the Times of Malta. Some people repeatedly voice their opinion on African migrants, not only condemning illegal border crossing, but exposing their hatred towards these people. None of them is censored and as much as I despise (or sometimes laugh at) what they say I agree they should be allowed to voice their opinion. However occasionally they do cross the line. I remember a particular comment going something like this (referring to migrants in Britain and Malta): ‘The BNP will in the end take control because they have the support of the Army. Same should be done here’. The threat here is not so subtle. The author is definitely not talking about just the Army officials’ vote.

This topic is extremely delicate, and the line between what is acceptable or not is extremely thin. Thus I would like to make some things clear:

1) Though one may think in what s/he reads here and in most of the media that the issue of censorship is related mainly to race, religion and political correctness, this is not the case. These cases are the most controversial, thus newsworthy. In reality censorship is more often used in the form of trying to silence people like Mr Joe Falzon, MEPA’s auditor who want to expose serious illegalities at the expense of the Maltese taxpayer.

2) What I wrote here is my personal opinion. It does not necessarily reflect what Maltese or EU legislation states.

3) There are a lot of gray areas. For example what about psychological harassment? A recent case of a homosexual who had his house intruded by someone who sprayed the words ‘No Gays’ is not, in my opinion just a case of vandalism and trespassing but a hate crime. There was a deliberate (and successful) attempt at causing fear in the victim, even if there was no overt reference to violence. Once again, the million dollar question is, ‘Where does one cross the line?’

 

Limits?

Another member of the clergy condemned the play Stitching on Talking Point article on the Times, though not as aggressively as others before him. This comes at a time where a storm in a teacup is made because some evil mavericks decided to dress as Catholic religious figures in the Nadur carnival, some of whom are also being prosecuted criminally. I emphasise the word Catholic since in this same island we live in, a Danish cartoonist mocking prophet Muhammed and Islam was considered as an icon of freedom of expression.

 

However what struck me in this particular article was the fact that Fr Paul Chetcuti states everything, even freedom, included that of expression should have limits. (On a general basis I agree with this but not vis a vis Stitching, on things completely different for completely different reasons).

 

From then he proceeds to say that believing in not having limits or the ‘sky is the limit’ mentality would carry serious harms and eventually deprive us of freedom. He then goes to mention issues such as the economic recession, global warming, increasing poverty and teenage pregnancies. What he and many others, no necessary within the Catholic church, fail to see is that with the possible exception of teenage pregnancies, setting limits, especially those on freedom of expression have nothing to do with these catastrophic ills.

 

The problem with these issues, seemingly unrelated but definitely aren’t, is not freedom, it is a malignant tumour that has been plaguing humanity all along. A disease we never found the cure for since we rarely if ever searched for it. This plague that can melt glaciers, bankrupt banks and kill children with hunger is called greed. We have our war on terror, on drugs or even on freedom of expression, yet no state or even minority has ever declared war against greed.

 

When it comes to global warming, not even the sky is the limit. For the sake of profit people not only kept polluting but up to a certain time (after which it could not be denied any longer) even went on the media, corrupting scientists with millions of dollars to say that we humans have nothing to do with this. One scientist said very crudely ‘the cause of global warming is the sun’. Unlike the people of stitching, these scientists were not practicing art or fiction. They were stating these things as facts.

 

Yet as the climate change problem is increasing problems in drought in the poorest regions of the world, fighting rages on in these same impoverished countries. If one looks behinds what meets the naked eye, the fighting is rarely about religion or ideology. From those waging it is for personal power, including financial wealth but not exclusively. Once again – greed. For the victims, the poorest of the world which have become a majority rather than a minority group) the struggle is against the consequence, of this greed – hunger, untreated illnesses, lack of education etc.

 

And the economic recession – greed in its pure form. What has happened (in simple terms, I’m no economic analyst)? The culprits are actually compulsive gamblers. No casino or jackpot could do as much harm as the stock exchange. These people take extremely high risk investments, with the potential of astronomic gain of wealth, or otherwise catastrophe. Yet, for these gamblers we don’t try to provide therapy like the man behind the jackpot. Neither do we imprison them for theft, fraud and misappropriation of funds. No, we bail them out. Rather than a deterrent we provide them with security, since these gamblers employ people, common citizens who work for their hard earned money. Poor guys, we think and rather than point our fingers to the gamblers and their greed we try to save these employees by giving more money to their oppressors. Ironically it’s mostly money that had been paid by the employees themselves through their taxes.

 

So, should there be limits? Definitely but not on a shocking play. It may be distasteful for some, but no Stitching will melt the glaciers, kill innocent people and eventually drown us both literally and metaphorically. I don’t think to explain what these limits are and towards whom. Hopefully it’s pretty obvious

 

Needing Stitches

Needing Stitches

While I’m passionate towards music and literature, I try to appreciate different types of art, including drama even if not so passionate about it. Thus, hadn’t there been this hype about the ‘shocking’ play ‘Stitches’ I’d maybe have been interested in watching it, maybe not.

However now I feel I need to watch it, or at least read the script, preferably both. I want to know what the fuss is about, not only for the sake of curiosity but in order to have a basis to form an opinion about the censorship of the play. With the information I have from newspapers, articles, TV programmes etc, I can say censoring it is just ridiculous. However, I can’t give the benefit of the doubt to those opposing it since it is them that are not allowing me, an adult to watch it.

I’m not absolutely against censorship, but the things I’d like to censor are of a completely different quality and for a completely different.

One of the reasons I find something eligible for censoring is promoting discrimination and racial hatred. A book published from the church’s press demonising homosexuals, which Dr Patrick Attard is opposing, would without a single doubt fall into this category.

Back to Stitches a reference to promoting racial hatred could be the mentioned fact that a particular character masturbates while watching women entering gas chambers. The issue here is not how shocking it is or not. That’s up to us adults to decide that. The issue is: is this condoned? Does Stitching promote Jewish people being sent to death as good fodder for sexual fantasies? If that was the case, I would regard it as inciting racial hatred. However I don’t think it is.

I don’t want to pester the producers but since the conservatives denied me the right to watch or read it I have to go to them to give me the answers.

One of the reasons I believe that racial hatred or promotion of criminal offences is not an issue is the fact that when one wants to pass such a message, it is not presented in a shocking way.

Human rights activists have opposed series programs such as Prison Break, Lost and 24 because they promote torture albeit in a subtle way. Since it is the ‘good ones’ using it, for the beneficial service of getting rid of crime, the subtle message is ‘TORTURE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES’ I definitely would not tolerate that.

On the other hand, the passion of Christ, from films, to statues, to paegants and books is a whole episode of blatant torture. Yet I don’t fight it slightly offensive. Torture is condemned, Christ is the hero not those torturing him.

Those condemning the play just quoted parts of the play in isolation, not context. It makes all the difference. Do they know that in the Bible there are these words written ‘There is no God’. Don’t they believe me? Go and check for yourself. What they will find is these exact words ‘There is not God’, however these are followed by the words ‘said the fool’. Makes a little difference doesn’t it?

 

Larry Flint and Father Christmas

Unlike Santa, Larry Flint was a very controversial person who promoted pornography and made his own magazines. He was also a pain in the neck because the reasons he gave for what he was doing were valid.

Santa, is a good man that gives children sweets and one of Larry’s ‘mistakes’ was using him in a pornographic magazine. It was a cartoon where Santa was telling a woman what he brought her for Christmas, coming from Flint it doesn’t take much imagination as to what he brought. The controversy revolved on the fact that Santa has become a religious figure and what Larry was doing was blasphemy.

However, there is a hidden truth many don’t know. Santa has been hijacked, and not by Larry Flint. The Father considered as a religious icon is actually a product of Coca Cola.

Originally the idea comes from St Nicolas who was famous for giving gifts, especially to the poor. Unfortunately, Coke caught up with that and made Santa tailor made for them. Just consider the colours of his clothes and the fact that during Christmas time he appears on nearly every Coke advert.

Some might say, so what? Believe me this really matters. Coca Cola is one of the most notorious multinationals that ever existed. Apart from supporting totalitarian and brutal regimes, Coke is famous for its death squads, especially in South America. Under extreme distress for a very low wage South Americans, including children have to work for the company, or starve. Unlike cosy Europeans working for decent wages, employees of Coke are not allowed to form any type of Union. If they even dare to mention it, make sure that Coke funded mercenaries would efficiently take your life away.

Flint’s joke on Santa may be of a bad taste, however, nearly harmless. On the other hand, Santa’s hijacking by Coca Cola is responsible for murdering thousands of people, and hides the truth by affiliating with a myth about a Saint, that ironically was famous for helping the poor.

For more information: Coca Cola exposed and Flint accused of offending Santa