Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1305625
10 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 1 NOVEMBER 2020 Raphael Vassallo OPINION 'Hate speech' doesn't mean 'speech that you hate…' FOR a country that is so utterly replete with hatred, everywhere you look – class hatred, political hatred, misogyny, homophobia, racism, xenophobia… you name it, we've got it here in abundance – it never ceases to amaze me how very few people seem to understand what the word 'hate' even means. Still less, the expression 'hate speech'… which – unlike the underlying emotion itself – is actually a crime in this coun- try: without or without the final approval of the Equality Act, currently being debated in Par- liament. I thought I'd point that last detail out, because one of the major local misconceptions re- garding 'hate speech' is precisely that it's not even illegal here at all. And this can very easily be confirmed, just by reading the comments under any online sto- ry about (for instance) immigra- tion. How many of those people, I wonder, are aware that Maltese law states, quite clearly, that: "Whosoever uses any threaten- ing, abusive or insulting words or behaviour […] with intent thereby to stir up violence or racial or religious hatred against another person or group on the grounds of gender, gender iden- tity, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, ethnic origin, religion or belief or political or other opinion […] shall, on conviction, be liable to impris- onment for a term from six to eighteen months"? My guess is: not a lot (or else, that many do know perfectly well… but are just as aware that it is a crime that just never gets prosecuted in this country an- yway). And this in turn might explain why so many people seem to think they can get away with such obviously threaten- ing, abusive and violent com- ments as: 'Burn them!'; 'Shoot them!'; 'Drown them!'; or even 'Gas them all, like Hitler did to the Jews!' (all real examples, by the way: and all directed at only one, very recognisable minority: African immigrants.) Because… um… then can. And they do, all the time... In fact, Article 82A (1) of the Criminal Code is well on its way to breaking the national record for 'laws that are most consist- ently ignored, unenforced, co- piously defecated-upon, or just violated with impunity on a daily basis' (a record currently held by Article 7.2 of the Con- stitution, which states – while somehow managing to keep a straight face – that: "The State shall protect and conserve the environment and its resources for the benefit of the present and future generations…" ) But still: at least, it exists. Which also means that, if any- one out there truly feels suffi- ciently 'threatened', 'abused' or 'harassed' to file a police report on the basis of 'hate speech' – and if the complaint also meets another, rather important legal requirement: "whereby such vi- olence or racial or religious ha- tred is likely, having regard to all the circumstances, to be stirred up" – there is nothing actually stopping them from doing pre- cisely that (or at least, 'nothing' beyond the sheer futility of even bothering in the first place). And yet, this week alone I lost count of the number of times the 'hate speech' accusation was bandied about: either with ref- erence to the archaic (and, quite frankly, rather repulsive) views on homosexuality expressed by one particular priest – Fr Patrick Pullicino – in a Times opinion column; or to the widespread reactions of hor- ror, disgust and condemnation the self-same article provoked among readers. Well, I need hardly add that were no police reports (as far as I am aware, at any rate) filed against either Fr Patrick Pul- licino himself, or any of the people who publicly responded in kind; and this leads me to suspect that what I just wrote about the people who indulge in hate speech – and I mean hate speech of the truly ille- gal variety: you know, 'Burn them!'/'Shoot Them!'/'Drown Them!' etc. – is equally true of those who accuse others of the same crime. They clearly don't know what the expression means, either. They, too, seem to be entirely unaware that we are actually talking about a serious crim- inal offence here: punishable by up to 18 months in prison, no less… and not just anything they happen to read, or hear, that they themselves don't par- ticularly agree with (regardless how 'hateful' it may sound to their own ears). OK, let me break with tradi- tion, and start with the reactions to Fr Pullicino's article… instead of with the article itself. (Oh, and another thing: I won't waste time boring you with my own opin- ions on the subject… the impor- tant thing here is not whether any of us particularly agrees or disagrees with his views: but whether he was within his legal rights to express them). As far as I can see, the main objection was to his core argu- ment that "Homosexual acts are not only harmful to the individ- ual who engages in them but al- so to society at large." Not, mind you, because it was the only sentence in the article to betray a deep-seated preju- dice against homosexuals: but because – by portraying one particular minority group as 'danger to society' – it could conceivably be interpreted as 'directing hatred against that group'… and therefore, poten- tially illegal. But there is a difference be- tween 'illegal' and, um, 'idiot- ic'… and LGBTiQ activist (and comedian, etc.) Chucky Bartolo summed it up rather neatly in just a few words: "This is wrong. This is dangerous…" He is, of course, right on both those counts: but they still re-