I think we need to decide once and for all what freedom of speech really means in this country, what the parameters are and at what point certain statements and remarks cross the line into territory which is unacceptable – and illegal.

We’ve had the Bondiplus Norman Lowell programme being justified by the producer himself because it was a way of “exposing the man for what he really is, warts and all”, even though this meant allowing him to make statements which offended the disabled, parents who have adopted black children, Jews and African immigrants. The Broadcasting Authority has charged PBS with breaching the law which covers racial equality, but has yet to announce its ruling.

Many have used the freedom of speech argument, pointing out that suppressing Lowell is not the answer, and he should be challenged instead. However, there are others, such as the Down Syndrome Association, who have firmly objected to public funds being used to promote his inflammatory views which advocate for a ‘pure’ race.

On the other side of the ideological spectrum, different measures have been used: a young man who foolishly and recklessly wrote on an anti-Pope Facebook group that he wished someone would shoot the Pope “in the hands, feet and in his side to mimic the wounds of Christ” has been slapped with a €500 fine and a one-month suspended sentence.

What a lot of us are wondering is why Karl Farrugia’s Pope comment was considered incitement but Lowell’s rants are not? Why are we supposed to smile indulgently at Lowell’s ‘ridiculous’ notions but then get ourselves all worked up and take affront because of Farrugia’s throwaway, not-to-be-taken literally comment? It seems as if we are saying that a right-wing radical with a substantial following is harmless, but one man with a Facebook account represents a real threat.

If we are saying that someone with a gun could have actually done what Karl half-suggested, shouldn’t it follow that someone who agrees with Norman Lowell could do real harm to, for example, a young black child adopted by Maltese parents? Lowell, let us not forget, thinks that adoptive parents and their children should be shipped off to Africa so that they will be back in their natural habitat “you know, like the Discovery Channel” (smirk, smirk).

The point is, the authorities are either going to disallow hate speech and incitement all the time, or pick and choose which statements are to be taken seriously and which are a far-fetched “joke”.

Others have been busy pointing out other inconsistencies, including the equally violent online remarks directed at Mr Farrugia himself, as well as the multitude of racist “let the immigrants drown” type of comments which are posted on the Internet on a regular basis. Don’t these too fall under the wide umbrella of incitement?

It has also not gone unnoticed that while the police clamped down on a single Facebook comment posted on a specific page (presumably because someone reported it), Facebook as a whole, and indeed the entire worldwide web is replete with examples of social intolerance and hate speech originating from Malta. It would be nice to have some consistency for a change – we are either going to drag people to court each and every time they instigate hatred or violence towards another person or group all the time, or we need to back off and revisit what we mean by freedom of speech.

So far, we have had two examples of very quick police action: in the case of Mark Camilleri the editor of Realtà, which carried a fictitious sex story, and this week’s case of Karl Farrugia and his ill-advised comments about the Pope. In both instances, the crime concerned the dissemination of information which is considered illegal under the Press Act – the former was charged with injuring public morals or decency and the latter with incitement to violence.

The common perception remains that the police were so swift to swoop down and do something in these two cases purely because of the two social taboos of sex and Church. You cannot talk about one and you cannot criticise the other.

Obviously, I’m not agreeing with what Farrugia wrote about the Pope, but on the other hand there is a lot on Facebook and elsewhere with which I don’t agree.

Every day I read horrible, nasty things online about people of a different political persuasion as a matter of course – statements which sound very much like hate speech to me, and yet, they are allowed to slide. Freedom of expression, we say. Fair enough. But even in these cases, is there a line which should not be crossed?

When we read things like “Labour supporters are ignorant, violent thugs”… should we call in the police and demand that the person be charged with incitement to hatred? When Sandro Chetcuti’s punch up with Vince Farrugia and the vandalism of Lawrence Gonzi’s mother’s tombstone were automatically (and as far as I know, falsely) attributed to the Labour Party, doesn’t that too amount to an attempt to stir up hatred against a specific group?

If, on the other hand, these are going to fall under the branch of fair comment, then the Norman Lowells and perhaps even the Karl Farrugias of this world should also be able to voice their dislike of a group of people or a head of state freely and without fear of prosecution.

Clearly, however, this issue of what you can say or write about others under the banner of free speech is still murky. Just this week Dr John Zammit from Alleanza Liberali was found guilty of insulting and defaming Labour MP Joe Mizzi in articles he posted on his website. He was fined €1,000 and warned not to molest or libel Joe Mizzi in the coming year or face a further fine of €2,300. He has effectively been banned from writing about Mizzi. Nothing in the news reports indicate what exactly was written and why this led to such a harsh sentence, so it would be interesting to know, if only from a comparative point of view.

Only quiet protests allowed

I think someone has created a new rule: apparently you are not allowed to protest or raise your voice anymore because you will be branded with the hated word ‘marmalja’ (mob). It happened with the GWU protest, with the recent uproar in Parliament, and with the Mepa meeting this week.

I hate shouting and rude behaviour as much as the next person and anyone making a scene makes me want to curl up with embarrassment – but when people are protesting about something, these niceties go out the window.

In all the three occasions mentioned above, the vociferous anger did not happen in a vacuum – there was a very real context. And yet in order to stifle and belittle these protestations I’ve noticed this new tack – the curling of a lip in scorn as newscasters speak in faux shocked tones of “insults and obscenities”.

Oh come on – since when has everyone become such a shrinking violet? In my mind, this is another way in which freedom of expression is being censored – just come down like a tonne of bricks on any vocal protest and tag on the ‘Labour mob’ label onto it. That way, people who are not Labour voters will be loathe to associate themselves with the protest and will scurry back home before anyone can stick them with a derogatory adjective.

You can only keep the lid on this national wave of anger for only so long though. As the Gonzi government continues to steamroll over people’s objections on a myriad of issues, the pressure cooker of resentment will continue to bubble and hiss even more. And while it is easy to sneer at those who shout and scream in front of a camera, if I were the Prime Minister I would be more worried about the mutinous muttering of those who stay quietly at home.

[email protected]