It is fortuitous, and perhaps not entirely incidental, that the recent Mabel Strickland Memorial Lecture tackled the issue of free press.
Much has been said about freedom of expression and how the valiant and righteous Western civilisation holds it at heart in the recent days following the attacks in Paris. The picture drawn was that Westerners are paladins of free speech.
Yet the recent (and certainly more factual) data published by Reporters without Borders paints a different picture. Many western countries - like Italy, France, the United States and yes, even Malta - have not placed too well in the table. Suffice it to say that in the 2014 Press Freedom Index Malta is found in the 51st place, and the others mentioned above only surpass it slightly. Some, like Hungary, are placed even further down the list, meaning that the first 28 places were certainly not reserved for the EU states. In fact, only about half the EU countries have placed before the 30th place (I wanted to allow a place for the United States, that mecca of freedom, though at 46th place, it has been out-placed by countries like Namibia and Belize).
What is even more interesting is that, apart from the Scandinavian countries (which always boost the EU's image, and are to blame for most of the misconceptions conceived), it was the ex-satellite countries (and an ex-Soviet state) which have done well and outclassed their Western-est companions. Estonia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have all placed in the top 20.
What has changed in the new table published a few weeks ago? Malta is now up three places in the 48th. An improvement certainly, but not one to write home about. For even if it gets past the censors, one would have to write how Niger is one place above, or how El Salvador looks down at us from the 45th. Tonga, Samoa, Cape Verde, Burkina Faso, Chile and Botswana: it seems that, while it may be a Western invention, at least in its current form, freedom of expression is not the privilege and prerogative of the West.
The top places are still dominated by the Nordic and Scandinavian countries including Canada. The only two southern countries in the top 10 are Australia and New Zealand which always seem to do "West" better. Jamaica also managed to slip in at nine.
As usual, we boast of virtues that, while not entirely absent, are not as present as we think, or would like to believe they are. The country score for Malta was 24.16. In 22nd place, Ghana's score was 15.5. Finland's, at the very top, was 7.52.
As I wrote in my last piece, our absolute freedom of expression is a myth; our freedom is limited and bound, in some instances justifiably, in others horrendously shackled by sinister motives. There has always been a dictatorial element in societies and polities, be it ideological, religious, or purely motivated by self-interest and greed.
Not that absolute freedom is something one should strive for: freedom should come on a leash. Letting freedom of expression - though not of thought - run loose could only have one result: chaos would invariably ensue.
Not to mention the mostly misplaced sense of superiority and the resulting condescending and patronising attitude that an unhealthy dose of freedom gives those who choose to imbibe far too much and irresponsibly.
Just this week, a Swede spoke to me about the controversial nature of our past Commissioner. When I asked what was controversial about him, the subject of abortion was promptly brought up. When I still failed to spot the controversy, the dismissive explanation pointed to the "free" attitude enjoyed by our Nordic neighbours.
The patronising - though possibly unintentional - attitude was far less hard to spot. There it was, in fact, smiling condescendingly at my southern and backward mentality, hopelessly shackled by some medieval concepts on the rights of women. I did try, unsuccessfully, to explain that gender had no role to play in this, that I firmly believed that it was not, in fact, a question of control over one's body but rather a question of control over another's body, and that rights should stop when they impinge on the rights of others, past, present or future. Even dead people have a right to silence, so why does a soon-to-be born baby not have the right to life? In any case, none of this mattered. I was too un-free to contribute meaningful ideas to the debate.
What bothers me is not, of course, that there is disagreement on an issue: I believe in freedom of thought. It is not that I believe I am right about the issue either: it is the fact that any opposition to the "free" attitude [not so free for the baby but, typically, "it" is too small to be important - profound and deep thought indeed] espoused by the champions of freedom is instantly shrugged off as an obviously misguided opinion. More free is, according to this view, always better. Those who believe otherwise simply need to catch up.
Freedom has become a thick, opaque blanket to cover thoughts, and a convenient counter to silence opinions different from one's own by attacking the person espousing them - much like in the 60s when any talk of social policies labelled you a communist and a threat to Western society. I see that the West is still using the same old dirty tricks to justify its intolerant, domineering, self-interested approach - though surprisingly this time the ideological imperialism comes from the left. Freedom is being used to shackle thought.
The freedom which should be promoted and protected, on the other hand, is slowly being constrained and shackled - no doubt to cater for the despotic conditioning and brainwashing of society to suit the interests of the democratically elected few.
Which brings us back to the starting point and facing the two pointy horns of the bull. Which freedom should be let free, and how much of it? And, conversely, which freedom should be caged?
The degree of freedom should be contextual: academic circles should enjoy greater extents of freedom. The press should be free in carrying out its investigations. When freedom offends, the air becomes murkier. Freedom which offends through its conveyance of truth is far easier to justify than freedom whose only intent is to purely offend and stir up some sensationalist, money-making trouble.
As in other areas, Aristotle's Golden Mean holds true: there should be the right degree of freedom, in the right context for the right purpose at the right time.
Everyone is free to think what that means.