Commentary: Consider it an insult

Porrúa, a major Mexican publisher, and the Tampico city government is releasing a compilation of works by poets and short story writers who have won the Efraín Huerta National Literature Prize during the 25 years of that prestigious award's existence.

One of the featured prize-winners is Sergio Witz, a Campeche poet who was at the center of a revealing little episode two years ago. Here, from the Oct. 23, 2005 Herald Mexico, is an opinion piece about what was going down at the time.

Insult a Symbol, Go to Jail
BY KELLY ARTHUR GARRETT

At the fantasy level, there's something to be said for selective punishment of certain poets. Anyone who's been trapped at an aggressively discordant poetry slam, or tricked into sitting through a bottom-numbing reading by some self-indulgent misanthrope falsely billed as an emerging talent, can imagine appropriate sentences.

But what's happening to a Campeche literature professor named Sergio Hernán Witz Rodríguez is no fantasy. He's on trial for writing a poem. Witz, who really is a legitimate, published poet, is in trouble because his piece “Invitación (La patria entre mierda)” is accused of “insulting national symbols.”

The particular national symbol Witz has supposedly insulted is the granddaddy of all national symbols — the flag. The actual insult involves a reference to mingling said symbol with human liquid waste matter.

Now, urine-soaking has achieved something close to cliché status in artistic circles. In recent years, artists have given saviors, fetuses, sharks and assorted body parts the pee treatment, and the worst they've suffered for it has been the scorn of the self-righteous and perhaps some pulled funding.

Witz, on the other hand, is looking at six months to four years of hard time just for putting the idea in writing.

That's because his literary wet-flag contest allegedly violates Article 191 of the federal penal code, which prohibits any insult (ultraje) to the flag or its insignia, “in word or in deed.” The law's actually quite clear: Insult the flag, go to jail.

What's less clear is how such a law can stay on the books when the Mexican Constitution explicitly guarantees freedom of speech. Article 6 states unequivocally, “The manifestation of ideas will not be the object of any judicial or administrative inquiry ...” And the opening sentence of Article 7 leaves no doubt: “The liberty to write and publish about any matter is inviolable.” The only limits are a respect for individuals' private lives, and for public morality and peace.

The inconsistency between the free speech ideals of the Constitution and the seemingly outmoded restrictions of Article 191 is what brought the matter to the Supreme Court earlier this month. Witz was seeking an amparo, meaning in this case that he wanted the charges against him dropped on Constitutional free speech grounds. The case gave the court an opportunity to strengthen freedom of expression in Mexico — something the Fox administration has often bragged about doing — and at the same time excise rules about insults from the law books and put them into the etiquette books where they belong.

But the five-justice panel saw things differently. By a 3-2 vote they upheld the law, re-established its limits on free speech, and sent Witz back to Campeche to face trial. To get around the free speech issue, the majority cited, among other things, a clause in another article giving lawmakers the faculty to regulate the use of national symbols.

That and some other excerpts from the majority opinion reveal a lot about persistent Mexican priorities. We are told that the work “doesn't just injure the flag, but the nation itself.” Also, an insult like this one to the flag “affects the security and stability of our nation.”

As a poet, Witz must harbor mixed emotions about the hubbub. On the negative side, every commentator, pro or con, has gone out of their way to pronounce the poem a bad one; it's even been officially designated a “pseudo-poem” in court texts. That's gotta hurt.

On the other hand, one of the leading minds of Mexican jurisprudence, Justice Olga Sánchez Cordero, ascribes to Witz's modest poetic effort the capacity to destabilize the entire country. How many poets can claim to write so powerfully?

Legal justifications aside, the ruling seems more political than anything else. The three majority justices clearly came down on the side of nationalism in its perceived struggle to survive against “international” ideas like freedom of expression and global engagement. Mexico's peculiar brand of ultra-defensive nationalism is less a manifestation of the national character than a manufactured creation of post-Revolution thinkers who saw a political use for it. But whatever needs it may have served in the 20th century, it's seen by many to be a liability today.

Judging from published quotes, challenging reflexive nationalism (as opposed to sincere love of country) was precisely the purpose of Witz's poem. As poets do, he used bold imagery to make his case. How well he pulled it off is beside the point. How “insulting” his text may be is also beside the point. What matters is that the force of the law is being used to punish him for commenting on a pressing social topic of our day — the role of nationalism and nationalistic symbols.

That's about as clear a case of repressing speech as one can imagine, yet Witz's plight hasn't caused much of a stir. PEN, the writer's guild, wrote a letter supporting his cause, and commentators such as José Antonio Crespo in El Universal and Enrique Canales in Reforma have pointed out the absurdity of the proceedings.

But many journalists remember not-so-distant times when writing negative information about sitting politicians was dangerous to one's career, if not one's health. To them, apparently, a rarely enforced written law like Article 191 is nothing compared to former unwritten laws that were enforced harshly.

The man in the street isn't too worked up about the issue either. Most Mexicans, like most citizens of any country, don't like having their flag insulted, and protecting others' right to do so is not a high priority for them. Those who should be pointing out the necessity of defending unpopular speech — that is, politicians — don't see much of an upside to it right now. The case for tolerance doesn't fit well in a 30-second TV spot, but 30 seconds is just long enough to get yourself branded as a proponent of flag-insulting.

Meanwhile, the hamster-wheel hopelessness of the issue is dizzying. How can the desirability of revering national symbols be debated if the negative side of the argument is illegal?

The take-home lesson here is that commitment to a noble ideal requires more courage than many people are willing to invest — not just in Mexico but around the world. As always, supporting free expression in theory is easier than defending a specific application of it. Sergio Witz is an unlikely martyr who never asked for the job.