None but the most extreme will argue that intolerance and censorship are good things in themselves. Normally, the preferred course is more subtle. Instead of openly arresting people who say the wrong things, the new purveyors of intolerance try to sublimate their prohibitions on speech, expression and thought into more popularly accepted channels.

Something must be done to make these prohibitions more palatable because there is still a great deal of respect in Malta for freedom of thought, speech and expression.

A prime example of parsing good speech from bad is the notorious notion of "hate speech," which involves designating certain kinds of remarks, gestures, expressions and writings as intentionally hateful and, thus, worthy of regulation and even criminalisation.

The term "hate" can be misleading. When used in a hate crime law, the word "hate" does not simply mean rage, anger, or general dislike. In this context, "hate" means bias against people or groups with specific characteristics.

Attempts to prohibit hate speech and hate crimes have been around for quite some time now in our country. Appropriate efforts to condemn symbolic acts of violence have expanded over the years to include all sorts of alleged speech and thought crimes. Today, a public statement against illegal immigration or same-sex marriage can be labelled hate speech.

There are two types of threatening or defamatory speech: One is any speech, gesture or conduct that is intended to incite or is likely to incite imminent lawless action such as violence. The second includes certain classes of speech, such as obscenity and libellous words, which can be limited. Criminal intent has always mattered in determining if a crime was premeditated.

All this started to change with the rise of radical multiculturalism. Under its influence, the ideas of hate speech and hate crimes were invented. Instead of worrying about the violent intent of individuals, hate speech advocates wanted to ban utterances, gestures, conduct or writing that they deemed prejudicial against a protected individual or group. We have been seeing this in Malta too.

There is a lot of confusion making the rounds about the distinction between incitement and hate speech. One could turn to analysing the speech itself, the assumed impact on the victim(s), human dignity in itself, and possibly the impact on others.

One could simply distinguish between the terms "incitement" and "hate speech" in terms not of the gravity of the speech but its effects. Incitement in all of its forms is often confused with other types of inflammatory, hateful or offensive speech. Incitement can be distinguished from these broader categories of speech, however, with reference to the intended or actual effects of speech.

When inflammatory speech inspires one audience member to harm another person or group, that is successful incitement. Any acts of hate speech that are aimed directly at the victim group do not have such effects and therefore do not constitute incitement. Taking this as our point of departure, therefore, my concern is with speech that is aimed at the victim(s) and which has not had the effect of inspiring its audience to harm the victim(s) concerned.

Hate crimes have a broader effect than most other kinds of crimes. Hate crime victims include not only the crime's immediate target but also others like them. Hate crimes affect families, communities, and, at times, the entire nation.

The growing incidence of hate speech and hate crimes in our little country warrants measures being taken against any dissemination of ideas of caste superiority and inferiority or that attempt to justify violence, hatred or discrimination against any individual or group of individuals.

Hate speech is worse than discriminatory speech. Hate speech's use of traditional epithets or symbols of derision to vilify on the basis of group membership expresses contempt for its targets and seems more likely to cause emotional distress and to provoke a visceral, rather than articulate, response.

We need to nurture social consciousness, tolerance, mutual respect and intercultural dialogue to prevent incitement to hatred. A mounting number of verbal attacks on immigrants and other minorities has raised new concerns about the connection between inflammatory speech online and violent acts, as well as the role of the state in policing speech.

Trends in hate crimes echo changes in the political climate, and social media can magnify discord. At their most extreme, rumours and invective disseminated online can contribute to violence.

Hate speech not only causes harm at the personal level; it is also an attack on inclusion, diversity, and human rights. It undermines social cohesion and erodes shared values, setting back stability, sustainable development, and the fulfilment of human rights for all.

Much of the country now communicates on social media, with many active on Meta alone. As more and more people have moved online, individuals inclined towards racism, misogyny or homophobia have found niches that can reinforce their views and have the potential to goad them to violence. Social media platforms also offer violent actors the opportunity to publicise their acts.

Evidence indicates that the sharing of hateful attitudes online can motivate people to commit harmful acts in the real world, such as physical assault, verbal abuse, and damage to property. Hateful content can even lead to tragedies.

There is a fine line between free speech and hate speech. Free speech encourages debate, whereas hate speech incites violence.

Hate radio, hate speech, hate groups and hate crimes really do not fit in with the Malta that we wish for today and tomorrow.