Forbidding Vulgarity

Really, it can be so annoying when a newspaper picks up a story say, from Agence-France Presse, and then doesn't bother to do a follow-up. In the sense that the story, as published, alerts the reader to a substantive issue, lays out in some detail what a certain country's lawmakers are grappling with in their attempts to serve the finer interests of their nation and their countrymen, and you're just left dangling.

There's no conclusion. There are no further stories, no updates, nothing to alert you to the reality that the issue has been resolved. Now, is that fair? Doesn't it make sense that if a story is worth news-time, if it's worth reporting on, of being published, and picked up by various newspapers in various countries of the world as an item of interest, then surely they and the reader have invested something in it?

Curiosity must be salved...

The issue becomes theirs too. They become curious. They want to know what occurred in that particular parliament. What on Earth happened to the issue? Doesn't the reading public have a right to know? Our interest has been aroused, and we're left dangling, as it were. That surely is not right.

This issue, for example: Malawi has a law that states:

"Any person who voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

"Guilty of a misdemeanor", now that sounds impressive. And the delicacy of that wording: "Any person who voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere..." Forgive our ignorance, but what might that mean? Ah, here it is: vitiate: vitiated - corrupted: ruined in character or quality. Someone then, who corrupts the atmosphere. By cursing? By behaving badly?

Ah, now it becomes clear. Soiling the air by intemperate passing of gas.

The debate in Malawi was all about a farting ban. There, it is said. A farting ban. "The government has a right to ensure public decency. We are entitled to introduce order in the country", said Justice and Constititutional Affairs Minister George Chaponda. "Would you like to see people farting in public anywhere?", he further added.

Why, no, we would not, and yes Mr. Chaponda, you do have a serious issue there. And President Bingu wa Mutharika's government has a legitimate concern over Malawians' incapability or unwillingness to control their farting: "They should go to the toilet instead of farting in public. Nature can be controlled ... it becomes a nuisance if people fart anywhere."

No, this is serious business. This cannot be seen as acceptable behaviour, soiling the atmosphere in such a manner. One wonders, are Malawians great bean eaters? Regardless of which, the country's Democratic Progressive Party (thank heavens for progressives everywhere) has a majority in their parliament that means to pass an amendment to the law first passed in 1929.

The amendment would make farting in public an offence. And so it should; the penal code should reflect such egregious odiferous insults to the public weal. Let's hear it for the good people of Malawi; they deserve better. They most surely do.

Polite social convention will triumph!