Our View: It was censorship whatever the education ministry says about play

There was one positive thing to come out of the ludicrous decision of the ministry of education’s committee for the approval of shows to take a line from a children’s play because it deemed it offensive – the strong public reaction. Organisations, state officials, media and individuals all spoke out against it, expressing incredulity at the fact that such a committee actually existed and then insisted that a comment was removed from the adaptation of Jules Verne’s Around the World in 80 Days. The consensus view was that the ministry was engaging in censorship.

The Cyprus Theatre Organisation (Thoc) production included a line which asked “could a boy want to be a girl and girl want to be a boy?” According to the education ministry’s version of events, the committee, after a visit to the rehearsal, deemed that the phrase was inappropriate for children and asked the director to change or remove the line. The line was subsequently changed to the question, “can a boy want a boy and a girl want a girl?” which the committee also thought was inappropriate and asked that it was also removed or changed.

When the play was finally performed, another question was used – “can a boy love a boy and girl love a girl” – and this sparked complaints and protests from parents as well as critical comments in the media said the education ministry. There were also negative comments about the outfits worn, prompting the committee to tell the Thoc artistic director not to use “the reference that seemed to cause offence”.

Answering its critics, the ministry said in an announcement on Wednesday that it “does not engage in any form of censorship, but was obliged, under the law to judge the suitability of shows that schools go to watch.” The approval committee was made up of pedagogical experts, who were well-suited to judge what was appropriate for children of different age groups to watch, said the ministry. Yet the committee’s members, put their expertise aside and demanded the removal of the phrase because a few parents had protested.

This was censorship, regardless of the ministry’s assertion to the contrary. Its approval committee demanded the removal of an innocuous phrase from the children’s play because some ultra-conservative parents took offence. The overwhelming majority of parents, whose children saw the play took no offence, but they were ignored. All those who justifiably accused the ministry of censorship, were speaking on behalf of the silent majority, that saw nothing wrong with the offending phrase.

After all, it was no incitement to hatred, violence or anti-social behaviour, so why was it inappropriate for children in a country that supposedly promotes diversity and tolerance?