Last January, the world recoiled in horror over the Charlie Hebdo massacre, perpetrated by Islamic extremists because of the newspaper’s portrayals of the prophet Mohammed. Facebook statuses and profile pictures across the country far and wide were changed in support of freedom of speech. Journalists from practically all of Malta’s newsrooms gathered at City Gate holding Je suis Charlie signs high. This was not a publicity stunt; those present were there to mark their support for freedom of speech and against those who would seek to stifle the voices of those they do not agree with.
Fast forward to seven months later and the Maltese government – in line with its other far-reaching and extremely positive civil liberties reforms – has found itself at the centre of a controversy over its intention to remove the public vilification of religion from the statute books.
In so doing, it has found itself at odds with the usual group of ultraconservatives, as well as the Church itself, which has come out against the removal of Articles 163 and 164, which prohibit the vilification of religion.
The Church argues that ‘vilification’ is entirely different to criticising, ridiculing, censuring, disparaging or hating. To vilify is to “render vile” and as such, the Church argues, what the law prohibits is the malicious, abusive debasement of religion, its adherents and its leaders.
This, of course, is a matter of legal opinion. Just ask those people who found themselves in court charged with vilifying the Roman Catholic religion in the wake of the 2009 Nadur carnival: the 26-year-old man who dressed up as Jesus who received a one-month jail term suspended for six months after pleading guilty; the group who dressed up as nuns and were acquitted because they were not wearing any religious symbols; and another young man who received a suspended jail term for vilifying the Roman Catholic religion, also in 2009, when he displayed visuals which included, among other things, Pope John Paul II and a naked woman while DJing at a music festival.
These ‘crimes’ pale in comparison to those regularly ‘perpetrated’ by Charlie Hebdo. However, as matters stand it would actually be illegal to acquire or distribute many issues of the French magazine in Malta under anti-blasphemy laws which are a rarity in Europe, the enforcement of which is even rarer.
Surely no newspaper editor in the country would be dragged into court over an editorial cartoon perceived to be mocking the Imam, or of one mocking the archbishop. But where, exactly does one draw the line?
But while the Church has said that the vilification of the Roman Catholic religion should remain in the statue books right where it is, it has also come up with the seemingly positive suggestion that the legal proviso should, in fact, be extended to all religions, beliefs or non-beliefs.
This is an important and reasonable compromise position, but it fails to address the central point that freedom of speech is a sacrosanct right in the modern world. This suggestion, unfortunately, would simply further curtail freedom of speech and extend censorship from the Roman Catholic religion to all religions, which defeats the point altogether.
Yes, blasphemy and insults to anyone’s religion is pure bad manners and the amount of blaspheming that one hears on an everyday basis in this country is, when one thinks about it, quite shocking. Uttering any obscene words – although what constitutes obscene words is not specifically defined – in public is one of the contraventions affecting public order included in the Criminal Code, and this should be enforced far, far better than it is.
In his own remarks following the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, Pope Francis said that people should not provoke and insult the faith of others, stating that if his friend utters a curse against his mother, he could expect a punch.
Beyond such considerations, taking care not to offend others ultimately boils down to politeness and respect. While such behaviour may be commended, it is not legally enforced, and neither should it be.