Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1431464
2 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella mvella@mediatoday.com.mt 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 • 21 NOVEMBER 2021 Violent words lead to violent crimes Editorial IT was perhaps fitting that a conference 'about com- batting and preventing hate speech' was held this month, at a time when the phenomenon appears to be at its very peak. These are, indeed, troubled times for freedom of expression in Malta: a country that is still reeling from the brutal assassination of Daphne Caru- ana Galizia in October 2017; and also, from the shocking murder of an African migrant worker, cold-bloodedly gunned down in the street in April 2019. In different ways, both these events illustrate the dire consequences of permitting a culture of hate-speech to flourish unabated. Last June, the Public Inquiry into the Caruana Galizia murder established that hate speech had played a large part in dehumanising the victim (thus making the assassination possible in the first place). And in the latter case, both the random nature of the crime itself, and (even more distressing- ly) public reactions which openly applauded the murder, only reinforce the same, general message. Our choice of words is directly conducive to our choice of actions: or to put it more bluntly still, 'violent words lead to violent crimes'. And yet, recent events seem to confirm that we have learnt little, if anything at all, from either of those tragic events. Indeed, it would appear that the incidence of hateful, hurtful comments – in- cluding explicit death-threats – has only increased ever since. In just the few days since that 'Hate Speech' conference, we have witnessed shocking, disturb- ing reactions to an interview given by Matthew Caruana Galizia, including some comments that can only be interpreted as unequivocal 'incite- ment to violence'. But the phenomenon itself extends far beyond the confines of party-political tribalism. For in- stance: the police's dedicated Hate Crime and Hate Speech unit, which was set up in October 2019, has already handled over 300 reports in just two years; and in September alone, the Vice Squad charged a record 40 people, in the space of a week, over racist comments posted in relation to a single online video. While the underlying motives may vary, from case to case, all those incidents seem to have one thing in common. They represent an inability to tolerate anything at all – be it an opinion, or even another human being – that in any way conflicts with one's own viewpoint. More worryingly, they all reach the same con- clusion: i.e., that 'violence' – both verbal, and physical – is in itself an entirely justifiable reac- tion to any form of disagreement. All of which recalls the topic of that timely conference, held last week: specifically, how to 'combat and pre- vent hate speech'… at what appears to be a very late stage in the game. Predictably, it is not an easy question to answer. Maltese law, for instance, contains very clear definitions of what constitutes hate speech – e.g., 'hurtful or threatening remarks meant to attack a person on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability.' It also specifies that such comments are punishable by up to 18 months in prison, along with hefty fines stretching into thousands of euros. Yet hate-speech has been normalised to such a degree, that the sheer preponderance of such comments online (especially where racism is concerned) makes it almost impossible for the authorities to actually enforce that law. The result is an apparent free-for-all, where people genuinely – albeit mistakenly – believe they have God-giv- en right to threaten or intimidate others as they please: without ever facing any consequence. This, in turn, may also have something to do with the precise wording of the law itself: which specifies that there has to be an explicit threat, for any comment to qualify as hate-speech. But this is at best debatable. In other countries such as the USA, for instance, legislators have amended the definition to also include communi- cation encouraging an audience to 'condone' – as opposed to only 'inflict' – harm. Among the types of communication that are considered 'harmful' – in the sense that they may, in fact, provoke violence – are the following: Speech which directs popular anger towards specific individuals, or minority groups; Speech which dehumanises minorities, to make them appear inferior and thus unworthy of re- spect, and; Speech which portrays the victim as "so revolt- ing they are undeserving of even basic humane treatment." All three of those definitions can be seen to apply to the above examples of hate speech in Malta: regardless whether the hatred is motivated by political reasons, or out of some other form of prejudice. Yet as Maltese law stands today, they remain insufficient to warrant a prosecution on hate speech charges. Ultimately, however, there is little chance that a legal reform – no matter how comprehensive – can address the root cause of so much hatred to begin with. Sadly, it appears that Malta will have to endure more cases of violence in future, before (or indeed, if) we finally learn that the responsi- bility really lies with ourselves – and more specifi- cally, with our own choice of words – and not just with our laws. 20 November 2011 Whistleblowers penalised for reporting abuse at Mount Carmel TWO healthcare workers who blew the whistle on nurses who were administering non-prescribed drugs to an inmate at the fo- rensic psychiatric unit at Mount Carmel Hos- pital, were transferred from their posts by their private employer and had their wages reduced after reporting the alleged malpractice. Mary Ann Bugeja, a staff nurse, and her partner Patrick Agius, a care worker, told the health authorities back in April 2011 that they witnessed nurses administering medications not prescribed by Mt Carmel doctors, by crushing them into the tea of an inmate who frequently paged nurses during their night shift. The inmate is a convicted murderer whose insomnia at night often means he pages nurs- es every other hour for a cup of tea, and this effectively prevents nurses from sleeping on the job when they should be monitoring the CCTV inside the cells. Although both the chief executive of Mount Carmel Hospital, Edward Borg, and the health minister Joe Cassar are informed of the al- leged abuse, Bugeja and Agius say they have not been told whether an inquiry is underway since filing their report six month ago. Their lawyer Robert Abela wrote to the min- ister about the documented allegations back in October, asking him to intervene in the matter after having first reported it to CEO Edward Borg in May. Since then, Bugeja and Agius had to resign their part-time posts from the private care provider Health Care Services Ltd, a company that is engaged by the health division to pro- vide nursing services at various stations. Both Bugeja and Agius were given transfers to other postings after flagging the abuse tak- ing place. In the case of Bugeja, she was effec- tively penalised by being paid one euro less per hour. The couple are pursuing complaints against their former employer Gaetano Bonnici with the department of industrial and employment relations. ... Quote of the Week "I don't see the point of cancelling the scheme at this stage. There were also accusations that we are trying to do something that goes against FATF, greylisting, etc. That's far from the truth." Finance Minister Clyde Caruana on a tax scheme that exempts people from paying tax on property transfers to set off arrears MaltaToday 10 years ago