Chris Attard

Since public discussion has descended into a ridiculous state of hysterical outrage, I thought I’d capture your attention with an abysmal joke.

Now, on to serious matters. Joe Mifsud’s ruling over the recent free speech case demonstrates inherent flaws with the concept of “hate speech” altogether, else we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

After the verdict was made public, NGOs, journalists and public commentators alike rushed to condemn the alleged hate speech, shovelling the usual labels like “trolls, racists, fascists” to anyone who dared resist the new political orthodoxy by expressing a differing opinion.

Some even went out of their way to mischaracterise the ruling, setting a precedent for a possible witch-hunt against the magistrate and others who agree with him. They said that by making this a free speech issue, “the Magistrate essentially condoned anti-migrant sentiment instead of upholding the human rights values our Courts of Laws are intended to promote.”

To add fuel to the fire, Saviour Balzan released a muddled video, in which he conflated the colour of one’s skin with the religion a person subscribes to, while assuming that everybody was on the same page with regards to “diversity”. He said: “In a society which has every recognition towards diversity, towards different colours and different religions, such comments are not acceptable”.

Many comments ran along these lines. However, since the initial distasteful remarks in response towards Sara Ezabe’s provocative interview titled “redefining the national identity” had no direct incitement to violence, then is this not a clear instance which at worst circles around the edges of free speech (along with the holocaust deniers)?

One headline read: “15 human rights NGOs say Ezabe hate speech acquittal ‘condones anti-migrant sentiment’”, completely oblivious to the fact that one could just as easily say that Ezabe’s provocative interview condones and promotes anti-Maltese sentiment.

If the qualifier for hate speech is the degree of offense taken, then Ezabe is in serious trouble, along with everyone else.

One thing is clear though, that the very concept of “hate speech” - as many have already pointed out – is so broad and open to interpretation that it has become a censorial machine for the loudest voices in the room.

Certainly, the man’s remarks revealed a sense of anger, as the magistrate himself alluded to. But this in part reflects an underlying, and arguably justified sentiment towards mass immigration and the threatened face of Malta’s Judaeo-Christian and liberal culture. “Rather, there is a sentiment that the Maltese are being discriminated against in the sense that the media is giving more attention, importance and coverage to the complaints that affect the immigrants than those that affected the Maltese,” said the magistrate.

To those arguing that the author of such comments should have been punished, would you rather people be stopped from venting their anger (which is not inherently irrational) in the public domain, and be treated as pariahs? Is it not the case that this would push such discourse underground where it would fester, spread and emerge with a vengeance later?

Society already has a self-correcting mechanism for inappropriate comments, as individuals pay the price in public humiliation and possible social ostracism if they breach the boundaries of socially acceptable discourse. Anything that goes beyond this in response to the full spectrum of criticism is an invitation to serfdom, and the appointment of that which I’m sure some desperately crave – a tyrannical ruler.

The only way one can honestly and consistently draw the line against certain kinds of speech is when direct calls to violence are made (as was the case when someone said something along the lines of “naħarquhom”, and was rightly punished for it).

It’s worth noting that prior to the whole furore, Ms Ezabe used the magical non-word "Islamophobia" several times in response to criticism, and media pundits gobbled it up like moths to a flame. To characterise words you don't like as a phobia is to treat an opponent as suffering from a medical condition, which is quite plainly an incorrect and sneaky move. Just because a person doesn't have the means to articulate his reservations to the 'sophisticated' level of journalists does not make them irrational.

And to say that there is such a thing as an irrational fear of Islam is a bit rich isn't it? Indeed, “redefining the national identity” is clearly Christianityophobic is it not? Why the irrational fear, Ms Ezabe?

Evidently, since there was no direct incitement to violence in this case, we are witnessing an unprecedented number of people who want to punish someone because they got offended. Once this door is opened, virtually anything you say can be construed as offensive, and therefore liable for prosecution. Ironically, those who are seeking punishment, and who screech “racist, fascist, (you know the rest)” at the top of their lungs are essentially arguing for their own imprisonment.

Indeed, is it not the case that an increasing number of Maltese feel very much offended at the discrimination hurled at them through today’s media coverage? Perhaps one ought to slap a few fines on grandstanding journalists for “offending Maltese sensitivities”. Clearly, while one could easily sympathise with the frustration against this anti-Maltese media bias, there are not and should not be any calls for prosecution against journalists who have a point of view (whether they’d admit it or not).

Otherwise, this would require that a supreme arbiter be appointed as the dear leader - policing what people can say, read, think or feel. And as we all know, if you stop speaking freely, you will very quickly cease to think freely – which isn’t saying much judging by the hysterical backlash from the new orthodoxy.

That being said, the answer to mean comments or bad ideas (e.g. Islam) is healthy public discussion, and not a supreme, all-knowing and all-too-human arbiter or entity. In order to be able to think or speak you have to risk being offended, and you cannot have the cake and eat it once you’ve made the decision to enter the sphere of public discourse.

Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”? Manifestly, a good chunk of our media have taken it upon themselves to be the moral arbiters of everything ranging from culture to economics to freedom of expression. Judging by their incessant calls for a sort of divine punishment on mean comments, perhaps this new orthodoxy should look to elect its own Pope to speed up the process.

Meanwhile, those who have the audacity to blaspheme against the cult of superficial diversity ought to be very careful, as I fear we may be on the verge of a 21st century inquisition.

In truth, we all know that getting offended does not constitute grounds for anything, and one should be highly suspicious of the motives of those who expect legal proceedings against opponents or critics just because their sensitivities were ruffled.

Short of direct calls to violence, free speech must remain absolute. So if you can't take the heat of public debate, then you shouldn't be in it.