Dr Andrew Azzopardi, an academic and commentator, recently suggested that the Constitution of Malta should no longer specify the Roman Catholic faith as the country's religion.  He argued that the State should maintain neutrality on the matter of religious beliefs, also because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, ban discrimination and require their signatories to protect believers and non-believers equally.

Furthermore, Azzopardi suggested that prayers and the saying of mass should entirely be prohibited in parliament, other public institutions, and during official national celebrations.  He called for the removal of any remaining priority or privileges granted to the Church; the elimination of Catholic religion classes in State schools; the amendment of the Affirmation Act to make non-religious affirmations, rather than religious oaths, the default in public appointments, State employment and official proceedings; and the introduction of a clear right to civil ceremonies for marriages, funerals, citizenship ceremonies, welcome ceremonies for children, and national commemorations.

These are ideas that have been mentioned before by people who believe that the State should be secular and that religion and religious activities should have no place in official institutions and settings. Some of these ideas were mentioned by citizens who had submitted proposals when Presidents Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca and George Vella had launched public consultations on constitutional changes.

Whether there is a majority of people who would support the complete secularisation of the State is not known, though public opinion polls from time to time have shown that strong majorities favour traditional religious symbols but simultaneously support personal social freedoms.

It is doubtful that there would be majority support for Azzopardi's proposals. The State of the Nation survey indicates that some 92% of people in Malta believe in God, the official census shows that about 83% of the total population identifies as Roman Catholic, and around 94% of citizens oppose removing religious symbols like crucifixes from public buildings.  On the other hand, legal scholars and human rights advocates have often called for constitutional reform to officially separate church and state.

I am not aware that, in recent years, there have been cases in our law courts of people claiming to have been discriminated because of their religious affiliations.  However, this does not exclude that a certain amount of discrimination may be taking place. 

Perhaps the biggest bone of contention is the teaching of a Catholic religious curriculum by Church schools, which the Church and its orders contend is their right as part of their identity, values, and ethos.  Some people argue that this agreement should not be the case once the State co-funds these schools, but this argument is fallacious once the State itself embraces the Catholic Religion. 

Dr Azzopardi may well have a gripe against the Church because of the termination of his current affairs discussion programme on the Church's radio.  But probably he would have a bigger problem with the Church's right to censor its presenters if they were to air criticisms of the Catholic Religion and the Church. 

The issues involved are not new and have arisen in other countries as well.  In the U.S.A., for example, the First Amendment of the constitution lays down that private broadcasters   ̶   including religious ones   ̶   are private entities, not state actors. They are not bound by the free-speech clause to host competing or non-religious perspectives on their private platforms.

Not only that.  Civil rights and anti-discrimination statutes typically contain explicit carve-outs or exemptions for religious corporations, associations, and societies, allowing them to maintain religious criteria in their operations and messaging.  Regulatory bodies generally allow religious broadcasters to hold commercial or permissive licenses without forcing them to secularize their private airwaves.

Even in France, where secularism is supreme, the State is neutral on religion through mandatory pluralism in broadcasting. Slots on public stations are expressly allocated to the six main religions practised in France, along with a programme dedicated to humanism/secularism.  Under the Freedom of Communication law, the public channel France 2 is legally required to broadcast religious programming on Sunday mornings.

I doubt that discussion on Dr Azzopardi's ideas will go anywhere except generate heat on the social media.  But, even if his ideas were to become the subject of a nation-wide discussion, my view is that any changes in laws and regulations should only be made within the context of constitutional revisions rather than a piece-meal approach.

No Mafia state

In a debate in Parliament recently, Prime Minister Robert Abela said he rules out introducing a specific criminal offence for mafia association, saying such a measure would wrongly suggest that Malta is a mafia state.  A proposal in this respect is expected to feature in the omnibus bill expected to be tabled by the Opposition shortly.  The aim of the bill is to implement recommendations made in the Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry report.

Now I know that in common usage, we tend to refer to certain people or enterprises as being part of a mafia, but to actually claim that there is an organised mafia as normally understood in the world, or that Malta itself is a mafia state, is rather a stretch.

When international criminologists or institutions refer to a mafia state, they usually have in mind a country where the government and organized crime have merged so completely that officials, police, or the military work as part of a criminal enterprise.

How would one recognise such a state of affairs?  There are certain features that appear to be key to such a definition.  They include a situation where political leaders use their vast official powers to protect and abet criminal networks; government officials profit directly from illegal activities like corruption, drug trafficking, and extortion; supposedly independent institutions, courts, and the police stop enforcing the law against those in power; and an authoritarian regime often silences critics and avoids democratic accountability.

We Maltese tend to associate the mafia with our close neighbour Italy, where the Cosa Nostra in Sicily, the Camorra in Naples, and the 'Ndrangheta in Calabria have prominent operations and have developed global networks.  The mafia in the U.S.A. was a by-product of Italian immigration to the new continent.  But Italy is not considered a mafia state, even if a 2009 report identified 610 communes with a strong Mafia presence, where 13 million Italians live and 14.6% of the Italian GDP is produced. 

It takes more than speculation or occasional examples of mafia-type activities to label a country a mafia state.  This label would be justified if the economic impact of such activities were to be significant.  There is nothing to suggest that illicit revenues from organised crime networks in Malta comprise a notable share of the underground economy, while the broader national economy is diversified and stable.

Some might reasonably argue that certain elements of this state of affairs exist in Malta too, but it is something else to claim that they are widespread.  I am not aware that any businesses in Malta pay the "pizzo" or that businesses and people can have their property burned down if they don't pay it.  Nor has anybody claimed that most public officials rely on illicit money for their living.

In a mafia state, high government officials actually become integral players in, if not the leaders of, criminal enterprises, and the defence and promotion of those enterprises' businesses become official priorities. In fact, the reason that Bulgaria, Guinea-Bissau, Montenegro, Myanmar, Ukraine, and Venezuela have often been called mafia states is that the national interest and the interests of organised crime are inextricably intertwined.

Not only that, but mafia states have frequently been particularly dangerous actors in the international environment.  We all remember how, in Soviet times, Bulgaria was considered as a proxy for Russian interference (Pope John Paul II's attempted assassination).  Mafia groups in Montenegro had significant international influence, acting as dominant transnational players in global cocaine, arms, and contraband smuggling networks.  International criminal syndicates operate massive cyber-scam and human trafficking hubs in lawless border regions of Myanmar and Ukraine.

Western diplomats, journalists, and political scientists have also labelled Russia a virtual Mafia state, to describe a political system where government officials, oligarchs, and organised crime are closely intertwined.  U.S. diplomatic cables released by the whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks detail the "tremendous control" exercised by the Russian mafia and Kremlin collaborators over a number of strategic sectors of the global economy, such as aluminium and natural gas.

In some instances, the suspected leaders of many mafia-type groups have become celebrities of a sort. Wealthy individuals with suspicious business backgrounds are sought-after philanthropists and have come to control radio and television stations and own influential newspapers. 

Any objective assessment of the situation in Malta would surely rule out that Malta is a mafia state.  Any attempt to do so is abhorrent and would do grave damage to Malta and its people.  The fight against crime and corruption in Malta does not need this label or even the introduction of so-called mafia crimes, which can be handled adequately by the current laws of the country.

This is not to say that the fight against financial crimes and corruption shouldn't be notched up.  The first thing the government should do is to transform the totally useless Commission against Corruption into an agency with teeth, working closely with the Inland Revenue Department and the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit and reporting directly to Parliament.

Quote of the Week. "The resolution (for an EU strategy to counter Islamist entryism) makes reference to antisemitism and Palestine. It's a direct attack on humanitarian work in the West Bank."  -   Alex Agius Muscat, explaining why he didn't vote on the European Parliament's resolution on Islamic infiltration.