When he reported the editor and publishers of a student newspaper to the police, the university rector may have been motivated by genuinely respectable concerns, like the need to uphold the dignity of women and fight against misogyny. His wife, after all, is a very prominent gynaecologist – my gynaecologist, as it happens.

But whatever his motivation, and however decent it might have been, he misjudged the situation sorely. Perhaps he didn’t think about it enough, and failed to assess the likely consequences of his action, most probably because he didn’t consider the matter in a wider context and looked only narrowly at the literal letter of the law.

Malta, with its very recent history of oppression, political and religious censorship and strict limitations – through the use of violence and archaic laws – on freedom of expression, is a curious mix. On the one hand, many people remain raw and sensitive to behaviour such as this, and bridle at it. On the other hand, there is a significant number of people who, because of the island’s difficult relationship with democracy well into the present, believe that if the perceived majority disapproves of something, then this gives them the right to suppress it.

Mark Camilleri, the 21-year-old history student who edits Realta, the student newspaper in question, has been summoned for interrogation by the police and told that he may yet face criminal prosecution. This has led to a flurry of protest and condemnation. I am not at all surprised. What surprises me is that nobody in the rector’s office appears to have said: “Look, it’s really not a good idea for the university to ban a student newspaper and report its 21-year-old student editor to the police for investigation and prosecution. That’s the sort of thing that happens in China, and people will almost certainly react badly to it – far worse than they reacted to the story, which few will have read anyway.”

I am surprised, too, that neither the rector nor his advisers appear to have understood that the piece is not an opinion column written by a sub-literate, raging, gutter misogynist who treats women like trash. Why would such a person be writing for a student newspaper in the first place, and why would a student newspaper – a left-wing student newspaper, what’s more – have commissioned the opinion of somebody like that and framed it as something positive and worthy of promotion?

The author’s name should have given the game away: Alex Vella Gera is a published author. His very short story is written in the first person, as a brutal man who hates women and who uses sex and rejection as a power game. It is obvious that this is what it is, and that it is not an opinion piece – and not because it isn’t well written, but because one assumes that people who read student newspapers have a certain IQ and are educated in the use of irony as a literary device, and with the idea of fiction being written in the first person.

Let’s say that this student newspaper had published instead the text of a hate speech by Norman Lowell, inciting readers against African people, agitating for their ill-treatment and comparing them to beasts, and framed it in such a context as to encourage others to sympathise with him rather than to disapprove of what he says. In that case, yes, the rector would have been legally, and even morally, correct to report the matter for further action, because race-hate speech is against the law.

But even then he would have been ill-advised to do so. Police action against student newspapers, banning student newspapers, is always going to come across really badly, no matter what they publish. When you’re a student, when you’re young, you push the boundaries. It’s what you do. Society has a much higher level of tolerance for students doing naughty things than it does for middle-aged (or even, as in the case of Lowell, elderly) people doing the same thing. The forces of law and order should simply not sit on student newspapers. That’s it. Let them experiment. It’s what they’re at university to do, whether you like the results or not.

What if the story was truly a hateful opinion piece against women, rather than just fiction written to highlight how some ghastly men think of women and how wrong and hateful that way of thinking is? Should the rector have reported it to the police? Well, as with the ‘blacks’ example, yes, strictly speaking he would have been correct to do so. But again, it wouldn’t have been at all wise. For a start, unlike black people or Africans in general, women are not a minority in this or any society. Nor are we in a weak position any longer. We can look after ourselves well enough, thank you, and don’t need university rectors to ban stories that might upset us. I am not going to speak on behalf of all women. I can’t do that. But I for one find this attitude more than a little patronising, sheltering the ‘little ladies’ from harm, as though the little ladies are not capable of throwing more than a few punches themselves.

The situation is rendered all the more ridiculous when you consider that this is not an opinion piece but a piece of fiction. Before the university authorities realised that it is fiction, and not opinion, they banned the newspaper for promoting hatred of women. Then a light went off in somebody’s head – oh gosh, it’s a story. But by then the authorities had painted themselves into a bit of a corner and probably felt they just had to carry on with the persecution instead of admitting to error and climbing down. So the police report was filed on the basis of some arcane and archaic law that forbids the publishing and distribution of obscene material, which is really only used for hard pornography nowadays and nothing else.

This only served to make the university’s stance seem even sillier. It bans a student newspaper with an ‘obscene’ story when the shelves of its library are laden with some rather more remarkable pieces of obscenity – to use the university’s own definition, which is not one I would use myself. Am I to conclude that nobody in the rector’s office reads contemporary fiction, and that the university actively discourages its students from reading some of the world’s major authors on the grounds of obscenity? How can you study contemporary American literature without reading Brett Easton Ellis?

When Alex Vella Gera, who has also been questioned by the police (really, how Chinese), was interviewed by the press about the controversy, he said: “I never imagined that the story would create such an extreme reaction. That is why I had it published at the university, where I thought the largest concentration of intelligent and discerning individuals could be found. I never dreamed Realta would be banned (because of it). The fact that reactions have been so strong shows that it’s time for the Maltese reader to grow up.”

Vella Gera misses the point. Reactions are not strong because the Maltese reader needs to grow up, but because the Maltese reader just doesn’t exist. Deprived of contact with the world of fiction, with trends in contemporary writing, with all that is out there and in the mainstream, Mr and Mrs Little Islander are simply not in a position to pass judgement on the contents of student newspapers.

In solidarity with the student newspaper Realta and with its young editor, and to highlight just how ridiculous the ban and the involvement of the police is, I have published the troublesome story on my blog. I have no rector to request police action and, in any case, the police know they would find me a lot more difficult to deal with than a history student who is half my age. If they don’t prosecute me for publishing this story, then they can’t prosecute Mark Camilleri either – unless they wish to commit an injustice. And if they prosecute me, it will turn into a jolly old circus and much fun will be had by all. I shall greatly enjoy reading out in court ‘obscene’ passages from any number of books and magazines freely available in any Agenda bookshop. Perhaps somebody should sell tickets at the door.

www.daphnecaruanagalizia.com