I'm on business -- attending a regional cultural meeting (the official title is the XVII Annual Meeting of the Regional Cultural Committee of the Council on Human and Social Development (COHSOD) of Caricom).This day's business has been discussing the Caribbean Festival of the Arts, otherwise known as CARIFESTA. It's supposed to be held in Trinidad and Tobago in September 2006.Exciting stuff. More on it later, when I have more.
Well, it isn't National Poetry Month here in The Bahamas as far as I know -- though I may have missed something; it's National Poetry Month in the elephant-land that squats to the north. But there's no sense in drawing unnecessary lines between us, at least not in this case. So let's just say it's National Poetry Month.What's more, there's a challenge going on all over the web. It's the NaPoWriMo challenge -- the challenge to write a poem a day for every day in April. I've decided to try; I could write a book in the month (though editing would be a different story altogether).
I've been thinking about yesterday's post. I've been puzzling over the 23rd Article of the Constitution, the Article on Freedom of Expression. I'm not entirely sure that it renders the actions of the Censorship Board necessarily unconstitutional. Rather, it creates a grey area, a kind of no-man's (or everyman's) land of potential possibility. After all, we're British in structure and philosophy, and the British don't believe in going around handing out freedom to everyone and anyone. Having lived in Canada and in Britain, I know very well that it's possible to legislate against hate literature, and that it's constitutional to do so in a way that it isn't in the USA; and we are far more likely to fit a British mould than an American one in this respect.So I went back and looked again. Here's what I worked out.The Constitution protects the freedom of expression of the Bahamian citizen. But it's not an absolute protection. There are some limitations, and they obtain in the following cases:to protect defenceto protect public safetyto protect public orderto protect public moralityto protect public health;andto protect the rights, reputations and freedom of others;to preserve confidential information;to maintain judicial authority and independence;to regulate communications, public exhibitions and public entertainment;to uphold restrictions placed on public officers or on members of the armed forces.Now from this interpretation, which I believe is quite clear, the curtailing of absolute freedom of expression is permissible under the Bahamian constitution. The curtailing of that freedom to "protect public morality" is one case in which the exception can be made, and so the banning of Brokeback Mountain would in all likelihood be quite constitutional.Except here's where it gets iffy. There's a caveat to all of this protection of the public, and it's this. If one can demonstrate that the practice of restricting expression is not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, then the constitution will protect freedom of expression.It gets iffy because what is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society changes with time. The goalposts move. This idea makes reference to a global consensus on what is "democratic", and that changes. Forty years ago it was not undemocratic for the state to put its citizens to death for certain offences; today, however, the situation is considerably different, and it is considered undemocratic, even barbaric, to impose the death penalty indiscriminately. Twenty years ago it might have been fine (and was; remember Mapplethorpe) to challenge artwork that was considered indecent, homosexual, or otherwise offensive to public morality; but that is no longer the case. We are living in a world whose boundaries are not fixed, and unless we're prepared to change we're going to be surprised by the international response to our public actions.On an entirely different note, though:Constitution or no constitution, we have to think about the consequences -- and the absurdity -- of our actions in a world which is saturated with information. To me it makes very little sense to ban a movie whose only offence is featuring homosexual love while at the same time ignoring movies full of violence, heterosexual sex acts, oppression, and degradation of women. (And I'm not going to call for a more rigid ban of all of these things, either; that is the easy, and the lazy, response). It's hypocritical, especially as it demonizes a loving and consensual homosexual relationship while remaining silent on coercive behaviour closer to home.I saw a series of images today -- readily available on the internet -- of Bahamian teenagers posing pornographically. I saw a film today -- again available on the net -- of a Bahamian child, no more than ten (if that old), fondling and sucking a dildo while the hand of a full-grown male spread her genitals for the titillation of the video camera. Bahamians are not only consuming this material, they're making it, and they're doing so with complete impunity. While we ban award-winning movies featuring actors who are proud of their work and well-paid to do it, movies that might, god forbid, lead us to think beyond the boxes we have imposed upon ourselves, we condone by silence a native pornography industry that exploits the people it features, either by twisting their minds to believe that what they are doing is normal or desirable, or by forcing them to participate against their will.We never talk about sex. What we do with it, though, is legion.
when asserting the Christianity of our oh-so-fallen nation:the kind of Christianity we tout so fanatically -- legalistic, judgemental, and beam-pointing -- has far more in common with the Pharisees and even the Mark of the Beast than with Christ.It's amazing what you can find on the internet these days.
And we think Brokeback Mountain is something to worry about.More -- for the non-squeamish among us.
So I'm browsing Nalo Hopkinson's blog, and I find this link to Kwasi's Ramblings of an African Geek, and I come across this post. It's definitely worth a read.
This weekend I moved servers for this blog. It was quite a production, let me tell you! Anyway, here we are on nicobethel.net. Update your feeds -- by next month the old address will be obsolete.I'm also trying out a new look. Let me know if it annoys the heck out of you.A note -- the links and archives are in the old style, to remind you of how this blog once looked. Let me know if you prefer it, OK?Cheers.
I've officially decided what I'm going to call the next article:On Race, Class, and the Tyranny of WorldviewsPut that in your pipes and smoke it.
This is an apology for anybody, if there is anybody, who checks this blog on a regular (read weekly) basis. I have not been very productive lately ( and that is an understatement). Life, and work, are getting in the way.I have several articles on burners. I'll leave you with a list of the ideas before I finish this post. However, this post is my way of saying keep watching this space; I will be back.I've been fortunate lately for having had my articles moved from the Thursday Guardianto the Weekender. They've gained a new audience there. The advantage of that is that I'm able to run some of the older articles -- those from 2003, which were first run on Mondays in the Guardian.I've posted most of those on Bahama Pundit. They're already here. All of my articles are here.The disadvantage of this is that I don't have anything new to post on this blog.Apologies. I hope to update more frequently -- weekly -- in the new year.Ideas of articles I'm working on (working titles):On Building a National TheatreOn By Any Means NecessaryOn the Politics of Race OR On Losing Independence OR On the Conspiracy of Theory (same article, no right title yet)On Intellectual PropertyOn By the Way CultureIf you have comments, feel free to respond.Oh, and --Merry Christmas.