Neilson’s Stitching: A Grave Affront to the Notion of Respect for Human Dignity
Posted by: kevin.aquilina
in Kevin Aquilina´s Category
on Sep 19, 2009 
Anthony Neilson’s play Stitching is a disturbing play not only with regard to the singularity of its offensive parts which, inter alia, target vulnerable persons (women, children and holocaust victims) but more so when these offensive parts are taken together as a whole: in such case they constitute a persistent and consistent attack on the respect for human dignity.
{rp align="justify">Indeed, the leit motif of this play consists not only in the individual shocking, disturbing and frequently perverse behaviour which go beyond the European Court of Human Rights standard in Handyside v. United Kingdom as to what ought to be reasonably acceptable in a civilised society but also in its continuous debasement of human dignity throughout the whole play. It is this very latter aspect that makes this play unfit for theatrical performance.
The Notion of Respect for One’s Human Dignity
Stitching primarily constitutes a grave affront to human dignity: this is seen in the points raised below namely that the play uses vulgar, obscene and blasphemous language; glorifies perversion; vilifies the right to life, the right against inhuman and degrading treatment and respect for women’s dignity and humanity; propagates uncivilized behaviour bordering also on the criminal; debases the suffering of women during the holocaust; degrades women to simple objects of gratification of sexual satisfaction; ridicules the concept of family life and the inherent responsibilities attached thereto of parents vis-à-vis their children.
(1) Uncivilized Use of Language: Rude and vulgar, obscene and blasphemous language is used throughout the play.
(2) Glorification of perversion: The play glorifies perversion, depicting it as being the acceptable norm in a civilised society rather than the exception (stitching a woman’s vagina as an act of sexual pleasure; bestiality - having sex with animals; a woman eating another woman’s shit; seeking pleasure in (a) child rape; (b) child murder; (c) having sex with the mothers of the raped and killed children, etc.
(3) Disparaging the Right to Life: The right to life is treated with such disrespect and is not taken with the seriousness which it deserves, being the most important of all human rights as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and as set out in the European Court of Human Rights’ case law: the ‘discussion’ in the play on abortion is so valueless and baseless that there can be said to be no recognition of human dignity of the person including the unborn child, bearing also in mind that abortion in Malta is a criminal offence. The same can be said with regard to the reference by one of the characters to Abby and Stu’s killing of their own child Daniel.
(4) Sensationalising Perversity and Inhumanity: Both characters (Stu and Abby) are perverse and inhumane: they do not show a single shred of remorse on the killing of Daniel (their first child); they do not appear to be willing to carry out their parental responsibilities as part of their right for respect of family life in order to save the second child from abortion; the life of the second child depends on the future of both characters’ relationship and should this come to an abrupt end so will the life of the unborn child – Abby prefers to abort rather than give up the child for adoption; the duty of parents to protect vulnerable persons such as their own children becomes totally debased and without significance in this play. The characters entertain no qualms against child abduction, child rape, burning children alive and then killing them and seeing the mothers of the murdered children seduced, fucked, fingered in their arseholes and putting the whole films portraying these heinous criminal acts on the web as well as selling them to make profit from the atrocities and suffering of other people. All these forms of behaviour are punished by various international conventions not only if committed in times of war but even in times of peace. It is like selling the film of the ordeal of holocaust victims just for the fun of seeing such victims dehumanised and shred into pieces!
(5) Disrespect for Holocaust Victims: the play contains the following wording: ‘the first time I came, you know what I was looking at? A book about Auschwitz. All these naked women in line, waiting to go into a gas chamber. I remember thinking how hairy their cunts were.’ Of all the abhorrent behaviour of the Nazis committed upon innocent victims, the holocaust sticks very well out in historical chronicles. However instead of paying homage to, and thinking of, these victims with the due respect that they deserve, Stu is only interested in the women’s sexual features rather than their desperate and lost struggle for survival. Whilst the European Court of Human Rights places a lot of emphasis on the proper portrayal and acknowledgement of the holocaust, Stu simply shows his disquieting offence to the holocaust victims.
(6) Advocating Degradation, Mutilation and Humiliation of Humanity: Abby is continuously degraded and humiliated by Stu in so far as his sexual demands go and in the way how he speaks to her and treats her (he repeatedly calls her a ‘whore’, he requests her to submit her person to various perverse and degrading sexual acts from her and addresses her with no sense of respect or décor); his inhuman request to her to mutilate herself which she in fact does (stitching her vagina) to please him, that is, infliction of self-harm for his perverse sexual pleasure is not only obscene but also inhumane, degrading and cruel treatment; women are treated in the play as purely objects of sexual pleasure, to be used, abused and disposed of without any feelings as to their well being and dignity (holocaust victims are treated in this way; the same applies to mothers of abducted, raped, burnt alive and murdered children as well as to the said children themselves).
(7) Uncivilized Behaviour: uncivilized behaviour is considered to be normal and acceptable. This is the case with the raped children and seduced mothers. Stu leads an irresponsible promiscuous life, harbouring perverse ideas, nurturing interests in pedophilia, child pornography, child rape, burning children alive, perverse sexual gratification achieved through infliction of pain on others and irresponsible procreation. Some of these conducts constitute criminal offences not only under the Laws of Malta but in other Council of Europe Member States, in Council of Europe Conventions and international criminal law. As the European Court of Human Rights has held in the Case of Wiktorko v Poland,
… the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished… this is essential for maintaining the public’s confidence in, and support for, the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of the authorities’ tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts…
Freedom of Expression
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights regulates freedom of expression which provides that it
‘shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas’.
Relevant Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
The European Commission and the European Court have both clarified and expanded on the nature of protected expression under Article 10. In the case of Handyside v. United Kingdom, the Court considered whether the conviction of an individual who had published a reference book for schoolchildren that contained advice on sexual and other matters constituted a violation of his rights under Article 10. Although the Court held that the State was acting within its margin of appreciation in invoking the ‘protection of morals’ clause under the second paragraph of Article 10, the Court nevertheless stated its position on the role of the right for freedom of expression in a democratic society as follows:
‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man ... It is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic society".’
Francis G. Jacobs and Robin C.A. White ('The European Convention on Human Rights’, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, pp. 232-233) write as follows:'There were nine applicants in the Muller case. They had organized an exhibition of contemporary art at which Muller had exhibited three paintings depicting sexual relations between men and animals, which he had completed on the spot. They were seized by the authorities on the grounds that they were obscene, and each of the organizers was fined.'
The Court found that there had clearly been an interference with the rights contained in Article 10. Since the law was for the protection of morals, its aim was legitimate. Having regard to the nature of the paintings, the Court found that it was not unreasonable for the Swiss courts to have found them liable grossly to offend the sense of sexual propriety of persons of ordinary sensitivity. The imposition of fines did not violate Article 10. In coming to a similar conclusion on the issue of confiscation, the Court noted that the deprivation of the items restricted the artist’s use of them. But there was a procedure under which the artist could apply for their restitution, and the confiscation order would be varied if appropriate measures to protect the interests of public morals could be put in place.
FILM
The Otto-Preminger Institute case concerned the forfeiture of a satirical film which portrayed God, Jesus Christ, and Mary in a manner which would have been deeply offensive to Christian believers. It was intended to show the film late at night in a private cinema; publicity about the film was circulated to members of the film club with a description of its theme. A majority of the Commission found a violation, but the Court, by a majority of six to three, disagreed. Once again the issue turned on whether the action was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the rights of others and the prevention of disorder. The underlying basis of the Court’s reasoning was that Roman Catholicism is the religion of the overwhelming majority of Austrians living in the Tyrol, and that the authorities acted to ensure religious peace in the region. The action was accordingly within the State’s margin of appreciation.
In the case of Wingrove v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights dealt with an eighteen minute film entitled ‘Visions of Ecstasy’ which depicted ‘St. Theresa of Avila having erotic fantasies involving the crucified figure of Christ and also a lesbian erotic fantasy involving the ‘Psyche of St Teresa’.’ St. Teresa and ‘her supposed fantasies about lesbianism and the blood of Christ are presented as the occasion for a series of erotic images of a kind familiar from ‘soft-core pornography.’
The Court decided the case in favour of the British Board of Film Classification by arguing as follows:
61. Visions of Ecstasy portrays, inter alia, a female character astrid the recumbent body of the crucified Christ engaged in an act of an overtly sexual nature (see paragraph 9 above). The national authorities, using powers that are not themselves incompatible with the Convention (see paragraph 57 above), considered that the manner in which such imagery was treated placed the focus of the work "less on the erotic feelings of the character than on those of the audience, which is the primary function of pornography" (see paragraph 15 above). They further held that since no attempt was made in the film to explore the meaning of the imagery beyond engaging the viewer in a "voyeuristic erotic experience", the public distribution of such a video could outrage and insult the feelings of believing Christians and constitute the criminal offence of blasphemy. This view was reached by both the Board of Film Classification and the Video Appeals Committee following a careful consideration of the arguments in defence of his work presented by the applicant in the course of two sets of proceedings. Moreover, it was open to the applicant to challenge the decision of the Appeals Committee in proceedings for judicial review (see paragraph 30 above).Bearing in mind the safeguard of the high threshold of profanation embodied in the definition of the offence of blasphemy under English law as well as the State's margin of appreciation in this area (see paragraph 58 above), the reasons given to justify the measures taken can be considered as both relevant and sufficient for the purposes of Article 10 para. 2 (art. 10-2). Furthermore, having viewed the film for itself, the Court is satisfied that the decisions by the national authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive.
62. It was submitted by both the applicant and the Delegate of the Commission that a short experimental video work would reach a smaller audience than a major feature film, such as the one at issue in the Otto-Preminger-Institut case (cited above at paragraph 46). The risk that any Christian would unwittingly view the video was therefore substantially reduced and so was the need to impose restrictions on its distribution. Furthermore, this risk could have been reduced further by restricting the distribution of the film to licensed sex shops (see paragraph 23 above). Since the film would have been dispensed in video boxes which would have included a description of its content, only consenting adults would ever have been confronted with it.
63. The Court notes, however, that it is in the nature of video works that once they become available on the market they can, in practice, be copied, lent, rented, sold and viewed in different homes, thereby easily escaping any form of control by the authorities.
In these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the national authorities, bearing in mind the development of the video industry in the United Kingdom (see paragraph 22 above), to consider that the film could have reached a public to whom it would have caused offence. The use of a box including a warning as to the film's content (see paragraph 62 above) would have had only limited efficiency given the varied forms of transmission of video works mentioned above. In any event, here too the national authorities are in a better position than the European Court to make an assessment as to the likely impact of such a video, taking into account the difficulties in protecting the public.
64. It is true that the measures taken by the authorities amounted to a complete ban on the film's distribution. However, this was an understandable consequence of the opinion of the competent authorities that the distribution of the video would infringe the criminal law and of the refusal of the applicant to amend or cut out the objectionable sequences (see paragraph 13 above). Having reached the conclusion that they did as to the blasphemous content of the film it cannot be said that the authorities overstepped their margin of appreciation.
Permitted Restrictions on Freedom of Expression
There are certain circumstances - such as those relating to the play under examination - where the restrictions imposed on freedom of expression should be considered reasonable in a civilised society. This is being said in the light of the fact that this play is incompatible with freedom of expression under the following restrictions:
The prevention of disorder or crime: the play does not censure criminal conduct but glorifies it: child rape, pedophilia, child pornography, inhuman and degrading treatment against women, including the mothers of abused (raped and murdered) children, total disrespect for the holocaust victims, violent sexual abuse, verbal abuse and psychological abuse – vide paragraph 7 above. The language used is also prohibited by the Criminal Code – vide paragraph 1 above in so far as blasphemy and obscenity are concerned.
The protection of health: reference is made to unprotected sex which brings with it the proliferation of sexual diseases such as HIV and AIDS (and therefore neutralises campaigns by Governments advocating the use of condoms to avoid the spread of such viruses and other venereal diseases); oral and anal sex (also considered as a source of venereal disease propagation), beastiality (human having sexual intercourse with horses); eating shit (surely not a recommendable sanitary practice!).
The protection of morals: vide paragraphs (1) to (7) above as well as to the references to respect of human dignity below.
The protection or rights of others: the various victims referred to in the play (rape victims, murder victims, holocaust victims, mutilated victims, victims of sexual abuse, child victims, women victims) should be protected against all forms of inhumane and degrading treatment and abuse perpetrated upon them, whether physical or psychological.
This play portrays human behaviour in a dehumanising way – at times even criminal by the laws of the Council of Europe member states (pedophilia; child pornography; child rape; child murder; burning live children, etc.), when such behaviour does not respect human dignity, where a human being is simply conceived as a gratifier of another person’s (Stu’s) own sexual passions, an exploiter of women, a killer of both the born and unborn child, a pervert, a sex addict and, above all, a person with no humanity. Stu is in this respect devoid of those attributes which render him human.
Respect for Human Dignity as an Essential Ingredient of the European Convention of Human Rights
The notion of human dignity has been fundamental in justifying a number of important judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Consider for instance the following cases: Pretty v the United Kingdom, Christine Goowdin v the United Kingdom, Valasinas v Lithuania, Yankov v Bulgaria, Kokkinakis v. Greece, Saunders v the United Kingdom and Keenan v the United Kingdom. In the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Spielmann and Jebens in the Case of Vereinigung Bildender Kunstler v. Austria (25 January 2007), both judges state as follows:
We would emphasise that the concept of dignity prevails throughout the European Convention on Human Rights, even if it is not expressly mentioned in the text of the Convention. However the Court has made it clear in its case-law that "[t]he very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom." And as a learned author has put it: "The foundation of human rights cannot be anything other than the ‘equal dignity’ of all human beings. Dignity and universality are therefore indissociable."
Wide Margin of Appreciation Afforded to State Parties Subject to a European Supervisory Function
There is a wide margin of discretion for each State Party to the Convention in determining what constitutes protection of morals even if the European Court has made it quite clear that, this notwithstanding, the Court maintains a supervisory function over national courts as to the exercise of that discretion:
The domestic margin of appreciation thus goes hand in hand with a European supervision. Such supervision concerns both the aim of the measure challenged and its "necessity"; it covers not only the basic legislation but also the decision applying it, even one given by an independent court.
Arguments in Favour of Allowing the Play’s Performance
Although it can be argued that the play could well have been classified as suitable for viewing by adults only and that those members of the audience who felt offended by the play’s script were totally at liberty not to go and watch it or, if they were watching it, to leave the theatre hall, theatre goers usually do not read the play’s script before its performance nor do they know all the exact details of the play prior to the performance, at least at to its particularities, until they would have seen it. Moreover, although freedom of expression should not be as a rule restricted, in this case this play contravenes a number of the exceptions permitted by Article 10 to freedom of expression. Not only so but the play also offends against human dignity for the reasons given in points (1) to (7) above and runs counter to the very essence of the European Convention – respect for human dignity and human freedom – as protected both by the Convention and by the European Court of Human Rights. It also despises fundamental human rights protected by the European Convention and by the European Court’s jurisprudence such as the right to life, the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment and the prohibition against slavery or servitude and respect for family life not to mention the Genocide Convention.
Conclusion
Bearing in mind the following aspects:
that the play Stitching was considered by the Maltese Board of Film and Stage Classification not to be worthy of classification;
that it is considered to be unacceptable to an audience in Malta;
that its controversial aspects go well beyond what is acceptable in a civilised society;
its disrespect and debasement of the notion of respect for human dignity and human rights;
the seven grounds listed above upon which the play debases human dignity and human rights which forms the essence of the European Convention of Human Rights;
the plurality of restrictions to freedom of expression under which this play can be banned;
the pressing social need and the attendant public interest involved, not to permit an attack on and an affront to the notion of respect of human dignity and applicable human rights;
the overall negative, inhumane, perverse attitude to humanity of both characters in the play, including the condoning of criminal offences such as child rape, pedophilia, child pornography, self-inflicted harm consisting in bodily mutilation;
the use of vulgar, obscene and blasphemous language; and
the utter disrespect for human rights such as the right to life, the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment, the prohibition against slavery or servitude and the lack of respect for family life,
all these should, both in their singularity and more so when taken together, constitute a pressing social need – also in view of the wide margin of appreciation given to the State of Malta by the Convention in the case of protection of morals – to prohibit the staging of this play and this in the light of the teachings of extant case law of the European Court of Human Rights such as those of Muller, Otto-Preminger Institute, Wingrove and Wiktorko above-quoted.
Freedom of expression is here to stay: but it is not absolute. It also has its legitimate restrictions. Indeed, there is a limit as to how much pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness should go in a democratic society. There is no doubt that Stitching overpasses these limits by its elevation of perversity and inhumanity to the level of normality and renders nugatory the respect for human dignity and applicable human rights which all human beings should enjoy. It is this essential human right of respect for human dignity – inherent and intrinsic – to all humanity which should be vehemently protected by the State and its institutions and forcefully safeguarded by all Courts – whether national or international – through the prohibition of theatrical performances which render nugatory such right.
Prof. Kevin Aquilina
17 September 2009
Appendix: Some Applicable Provisions of the Criminal Code,
Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta
Instigation to Commit an Offence.
69. Whosoever shall publicly instigate any other person to commit an offence, shall, for the mere fact of the instigation, be liable, on conviction, to -
(a) imprisonment for a term from two to five years, in the case of a crime liable to a punishment higher than the punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years; or
(b) imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, in the case of a crime liable to the punishment of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years; or
(c) a fine (multa) or detention, in the case of any other offence.
Condoning, denying or trivializing genocide, etc., against a group.
82B. Whosoever publicly condones, denies or grossly trivializes genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner –
(a) likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group;
(b) likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from eight months to two years:
Provided that for the purposes of this article "genocide", "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" shall have the same meaning assigned to them in article 54A.
Aiding, abetting or instigating offences under articles 82A to 82C.82D.
Whosoever aids, abets or instigates any offence under articles 82A to 82C, both inclusive, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to the punishment laid down for the offence aided, abetted or instigated.
Vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
163. Whosoever by words, gestures, written matter, whether printed or not, or pictures or by some other visible means, publicly 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.
Offences relating to pornographic or obscene articles.
208. (1) Whosoever, for gain, or for distribution, or for display in a public place or in a place accessible to the public, manufactures, prints or otherwise makes, or introduces into Malta, or acquires, keeps, puts in circulation or exports, any pornographic or obscene print, painting, photograph, film, book, card or writing, or any other pornographic or obscene article whatsoever, whether similar to the above or not, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine (multa) not exceeding four hundred and sixty-five euro and eighty seven cents (465.87), or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(2) Whosoever trades in any article mentioned in subarticle (1), even if such trade is clandestine, or distributes any such article or displays any such article in public or in a place accessible to the public, shall, on conviction, be liable to the punishment prescribed in subarticle (1).
(3) For the purposes of this article an article shall be regarded as pornographic or obscene if it is so described or defined by regulations made under subarticle (4) or is otherwise to be so regarded in accordance with any regulation made as aforesaid.
(4) The Minister responsible for justice shall, in consultation with the committee established under subarticle (5), make regulations for the purpose of describing or defining or otherwise establishing what is to be regarded as pornographic or obscene for the purposes of this article and may by such regulations make provision regarding the criteria to be followed for that purpose and may make different provision for different circumstances and different purposes.
(5) There shall be a committee whose functions shall be to advise the Minister responsible for justice in making regulations under this article. The committee shall consist of the said Minister, who shall be the chairman, and four members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Prime Minister after he has consulted the Leader of the Opposition.
(6) Without prejudice to any other right competent to him, any member of the committee may request that any regulation made under this article with which he disagrees be discussed in the House of Representatives; and upon receipt of any such request in writing, the Minister responsible for justice shall ensure that the matter is discussed in the House as early as practicable.
Indecent photographs, films, etc., of persons under age.
208A. (1) Any citizen or permanent resident of Malta, whether in Malta or outside Malta, as well as any person in Malta, who takes or permits to be taken any indecent photograph, film, video recording or electronic image of a minor, or produces, distributes, disseminates, imports, exports, offers, sells, transmits or shows such indecent photograph, film, video recording or electronic image, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from twelve months to five years.
(1A) The offence in subarticle (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term from two to eight years, with or without solitary confinement, in each of the following cases:
(a) when the offender wilfully or recklessly endangered the life of the person under age;
(b) when the offence involves violence or grievous bodily harm on such person;
(c) when the offence is committed with the involvement of a criminal organisation within the meaning of article 83A(1).
(1B) Any person who acquires or is in possession of an indecent photograph, film, video recording or electronic image of a minor, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(1C) For the purposes of subarticle (1) the expression "permanent resident" shall have the same meaning assigned to it by article 5(1)(d).
(2) A photograph, film, video recording or electronic image shall, if it shows a person under age and is indecent, be treated for all purposes of this article as an indecent photograph, film, video recording or electronic image.
(3) Where the offences in subarticles (1) and (1B) are committed by any ascendant by consanguinity or affinity, or by the adoptive father or mother, or by the tutor, or by any other person charged, even though temporarily, with the care, education, instruction, control or custody of the person under age shown in the photograph, film, video recording or electronic image, or where such person under age has not completed the age of nine years:
(a) in the case of the offence in subarticle (1), the punishment shall be of imprisonment for a term from eighteen months to seven years, and
(b) in the case of the offence in subarticle (1B), the punishment shall be of imprisonment for a term fromthree months to three years,
and the provisions of article 197(4) shall also apply.
(4) Where a person is charged with distributing or showing, or with being in possession of, any indecent photograph, film, video recording or electronic image under subarticle (1), it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing, or for having in his possession, such photograph, film, video recording or electronic image, or that he had not himself seen the photograph, film, video recording or electronic image, and neither knew nor had any reason to suspect them to be indecent.
(5) For the purposes of article 635(1)(a), the person under age shown in any such photograph, film, video recording or electronic image shall be deemed to be the person against whom the offence is committed.
(6) In this article references to a photograph includes the negative as well as the positive version.
Offences against decency or morals committed in public.
209. Whosoever, except in the cases referred to in the preceding articles of this sub-title or in any other provision of law, shall commit an offence against decency or morals, by any act committed in a public place or in a place exposed to the public, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months and to a fine (multa).
Minimum punishment for blasphemous words.
342. In respect of the contravention under article 338(bb), where the act consists in uttering blasphemous words or expressions, the minimum punishment to be awarded shall in no case be less than a fine (ammenda) of eleven euro and sixty-five cents (11.65) and the maximum punishment may be imprisonment for a term of three months - saving always the provisions of Title IV of Part II of Book First.
Contraventions affecting public order.
338. (bb) even though in a state of intoxication, publicly utters any obscene or indecent words, or makes obscene acts or gestures, or in any other manner not otherwise provided for in this Code, offends against public morality, propriety or decency…’
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form