Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1305625
11 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 1 NOVEMBER 2020 OPINION main two separate, distinct statements. So let's get the ob- vious one out of the way first. Yes, Fr Pullicino is 'wrong'… in the sense that he's making a co- lossal sweeping statement, un- supported by any scientific evi- dence – or indeed, by any form of argumentation at all: his claim that 'Homosexuality damages society', for instance. Really? Like, erm… How, exactly? – not to mention that the only study he does reference in that article, happens to have been officially debunked years ago. I could go on, of course; but as far as I can see, that only makes him 'wrong'. And to the best of my knowledge… a) there's no law against 'being wrong' (oth- erwise, who among us wouldn't be serving multiple life-sen- tences, as we speak?), and b); last I looked, the only ration- al reaction to people who are wrong, should be to rebut their flawed arguments with solid, data-backed evidence… … not to call for their impris- onment; or even, for that mat- ter, to demand that their views (however 'wrong', in any factu- al sense) be banished from the public forum altogether. 'Dangerous', on the other hand? That's a slightly different matter. The whole point of that law I quoted earlier – you know, the one that never gets enforced – was precisely to specify that 'hate speech' only becomes il- legal when it involves at least a plausible likelihood of violence actually taking place. Applied to this particular in- stance, this suggests that Fr Pat- rick Pullicino would only have overstepped the legal limit… if his words could reasonably be interpreted as having the real potential of inspiring violent re- prisals against homosexuals. And here, I shall have to admit the issue is very far from clear- cut. Did Fr Patrick Pullicino sit down to write that article, spe- cifically and intentionally to inspire other homophobes out there to commit violent crimes against gays? I don't know: sounds a bit of a stretch, to tell you the truth. And even if that thought was indeed lurking in his mind somewhere – at a subconscious level, perhaps – well, it still doesn't quite come across in his choice of words. No matter how shockingly antediluvian the opinion itself may sound to your ears, or mine: to say that "homosexual acts are harmful to society" is not exactly the same thing as to argue that: "all homosexuals should be burned/ drowned/shot, etc." If nothing else, because you can always counter the first statement on the basis of scien- tific fact and logical argument. Against the second, however… even the gods themselves are powerless. But does this mean that Fr Pullicino's views are entirely harmless? Erm… no, it doesn't quite mean that at all. Even if you can't interpret his words as any direct incitement to violence (which, incidental- ly, also means that any attempt to prosecute would most likely be thrown out of court)… indi- rectly, statements like these can (and do) contribute towards a very real aura of prejudice and social hatred; and which can, indeed, contribute to a climate that results in violent hate crime targeting vulnerable mi- nority groups. Arguments like the ones put forward by Fr Pullicino are of- ten used as excuses to legit- imise discrimination against gays; and they are certainly part of what both perpetuates, and condones, violence against gays too: be it the classroom bully, tormenting the little sissy kid at school… and maybe later the thug who beats up, or even murders, homosexuals (who only happen to be among the most frequently-targeted vic- tims of hate-crime, all around the world)… And this, too, is part of why Fr Pullicino was 'wrong'… and very wrong indeed, one might add. But I wouldn't be so quick to add too much else. For if the next step in the equation is: 'therefore, he must be si- lenced'… then suddenly, we are in the same territory as those who argued in favour of censor- ing Stanley Kubrick's 'A Clock- work Orange', way back in the 1970s: on the basis that its 'ul- traviolence' might – and argua- bly did – provoke violence and murder. Or, even more paradoxically, we may end up using the same arguments that banned Mon- ty Python's 'Life of Brian', or Scorsese's 'Last Temptation of Christ', in decades gone by. Those, too, were once viewed as 'harmful to society'… and not just in the same way as Fr Pat- rick Pullicino himself, and oth- ers like him, view homosexuals (and other 'miscreants') today; but also – irony of ironies – how contemporary, liberal soci- ety now tends to view the archa- ic conservatism of Fr Pullicino and his ilk. To put it another way: if 'hate speech' now means 'speech that is potentially harmful to socie- ty'… why limit it only to the hom- ophobic views of a dying genera- tion? Why not also to those who argue that homophobes, bigots and other 'undesirables' also have to be banned… because their views are… um… 'harmful to society'…? No, I think it's far safer to stick to the real definition of 'hate speech': and to the exam- ples that really do showcase the potentially homicidal effects of this ugly, dangerous crime. And as a rule, they tend to sound less like: 'I disagree with what you just said'… and more like: "Burn them!'/'Kill them'/'Drown Them!' 'Shoot them!'… …you know: the sort of 'hate speech' that no one ever talks about at all. If the next step in the equation is: 'therefore, he must be silenced'… then suddenly, we are in the same territory as those who argued in favour of censoring Stanley Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange', way back in the 1970s