Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1179886
18 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella MANAGING EDITOR Saviour Balzan Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 27 OCTOBER 2019 25 October, 2009 Moviment Graffiti facing eviction from University VILIFIED by the right-wing extremists for their anti-racist and left-wing militancy, Movi- ment Graffitti is now facing eviction from its University campus office, despite an official report stating that they are the most active organisation on campus. Contacted by MaltaToday, students' union (KSU) president Carl Grech, elected on the Studenti Demokristjani Maltin (SDM) plat- form, confirmed that a decision has been taken to evict Graffitti and that the office will be allocated to SDM. But Grech is insisting it is "still premature to comment on this case because it is still not con- cluded." Asked how he justified the eviction of Graf- fitti, which has been active since the mid-1990s, Grech acknowledged that "Graffitti is an active organisation" but insisted that "all organisations are duty bound to respect regulations." The official reason for the eviction is that Graffitti failed to attend three consecutive meetings of the KSU's Social Policy Commis- sion, which includes all the recognised organi- sations on campus. Perversely, Graffitti's eviction comes in the wake of a report by the Rooms Allocation Board, showing that Graffitti was the most active organisation on campus. The report gave points to each organisation and ranked Moviment Graffitti first, with nearly 100 points separating it from the organisation which came second. Normally organisations who rank first on the list have precedence over the rest in choosing a room at the University Students' House. But since Graffitti was absent during the meeting in which the report was discussed with the other organisations, it was relegated to the last position and was asked to share an office with three other organisations. Graffitti activist Andre Callus claims his organisation was not even informed about the meeting. But matters got worse when Graffitti were asked to justify their absence in three con- secutive KPS meetings by KPS Commissioner Andrea Pace. Citing a standing order, the commissioner warned Graffitti that organisa- tions which fail to attend for three consecutive meeting could lose their place on the commis- sion. Subsequently, the same official decided that Graffitti should be granted observer status on the commission, which lost them their voting rights and the right to have an office during the next year. "We can only conclude this was nothing but a result of a political agenda from the side of KSU," Callus said. MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week Hate speech limits freedom of expression Editorial "I was mistaken when it comes to the pushback, yes." Prime Minister Joseph Muscat's mea culpa on his 2013 attempt at sending back asylum seekers HATE speech is not a new phenomenon in Malta: nor is it limited to issues of race or na- tionality. Significant portions of what passes for 'public debate' here would qualify as 'hate speech', ac- cording to the United Nations' definition: "any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnic- ity, nationality race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor." Verbal violence – often in the form of 'ad hominem' attacks on people with differing views – has, in fact, long characterised the tone of national discussion on a wide variety of top- ics. Nonetheless, there is evidence that the prob- lem is worsening. Before last June's MEP elec- tions, at least death threats were reported. More recently, a protest calling for access to safe abortion likewise elicited open death threats aimed at the young women involved. The more recent Hal Far riots, where a police car and three other open centre employee cars were set alight, were immediately followed by a spate of unrestrained comments on social media that threatened violence towards the migrant community. This latter incident has also exposed the sheer extent of the problem: for the calls for violence were this time far more numerous, and – more worryingly still – seem to have elicited a strong show of support from others. But in a broader context, the threat of hate speech is more insidious still. By its very nature, it also aims at stifling the free speech of oth- ers. Death threats have a chilling effect, in that they create an atmosphere of fear and loathing that makes it difficult for any discussion to take place at all. When people say that they are being 'pa- triotic', or claim they are defending Malta to contest "anti-racism" opposition, what they are unapologetically saying is that they don't want others to have the same democratic presence they enjoy themselves. Quite simply, they are saying that they don't want others to have free speech. But free speech is there for the benefit of everybody, not just the few. Denying it to others constitutes a defiance of the very human rights that guarantees all our basic freedoms – including the right to life. So in this case, toleration cannot be a solution to intolerance. We need to be brave enough to call out racism and hate speech, because there are differences between what is 'wrong' and what is 'intolerably wrong'. This points towards a seemingly widespread misconception: freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to say anything at all, with- out facing any form of consequence. The stark truth is that… yes, there are some views that a free, democratic society can't tolerate. Racism is one of those 'intolerably wrong' things, because it denies some people human equality on entirely arbitrary grounds. It creates a hierarchy of human worth, and causes seri- ous harm to its targets. Racism, or speech that incites hatred and violence, or which targets people according to their social or ethnic group, is illegal, and should be prosecuted instantly. But our reaction to hate speech has so far been the opposite. Trawling the Facebook pages of Maltese far-right groups, but also newspa- per comments, it is clear enough that refugees and foreigners are not popular. But the already pointed incivility is only made worse by a shared understanding that being nasty on social media is seemingly acceptable. It is this attitude that must be countered through such initiatives as the Hate Speech and Crime Unit, inaugurated in Valletta earlies this week. The government may not wish to create a 'witch-hunt', for it could be lumbered with the unenviable task of prosecuting hundreds if not thousands of commenters; but it should know that much of this commentary is intended at inciting animosity and hatred against target groups, to intentionally inflict emotional dis- tress, and – in worst-case scenarios – to threat- en or incite violence. These commenters defame entire groups, and use slurs and insults to silence opponents. With such a nativist, proto-fascist, often male-dom- inated response to any sort of news relating to refugees and migration, the case for politically- led integration and stronger rhetoric against racism has grown exponentially. Deciding where to draw the line between internet hate and free speech is something that requires constant vigilance. Definitely, we need to empower people to take up effective counter-speech initiatives in the battle against hate. For example: recently, the Maltese football coach and social worker Omar Rababah livestreamed his response to the racist and xenophobic commentary about a multi-ethnic team called Syria Gzira FC. However, presenting counter-arguments that delegitimise hateful ideologies also needs sup- port, and people cannot be left alone to counter the wave of online hatred. It needs a coalition of willing people, in the form of an anti-defa- mation league, that can develop tools and edu- cational resources, including training sessions for bloggers, journalists and activists, to educate people of all ages and apply critical skills to counteract online hate. For counteract we must. There has already been one racially motivated murder in Malta; and that is one too many.