Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1490058
maltatoday | SUNDAY •15 JANUARY 2023 8 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt 'Equal opportunities piss-taking' Matt,once again, you seem to have landed yourself in hot wa- ter over something you've writ- ten on the Internet… That seems to be the case, yes. Not for the first time; but this is the first time you're actually be- ing taken to court, isn't it? Correct. And the specific charges con- cern 'misuse of electronic equipment'; and 'declaring your intention to commit a crime online' (adding up to a possible penalty of E50,000). That's pretty serious, by any standard. First of all: why you do you think the police are tak- ing this case so seriously, when they have ignored so many other similar complaints in the past? Do you think it's because you're a 'soft target'? I can't obviously speculate about the actual intentions of the police; I'm not privy to the way they work. But in terms of whether I'm a soft target: possibly yes, because I'm just one person. I'm an individual; I don't have a whole media or- ganisation, with a team of law- yers, behind me; I'm just some- one who writes funny stuff on the Internet… Do you think it might also have something to do with the iden- tity of the person pressing the charges? The report was filed by Gordon Manche, of the Riv- er of Love foundation (and let's face it: both he, and his organ- isation, have followers; and wield a little clout....) Again, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors; and Mr Manche, like any other cit- izen, has every right to feel ag- grieved. Whether going to the police was the right course of action for him, or not, is natu- rally debatable… but still: here we are… OK, let's go back to how it all started. Your original comment – which led to the exchange where you suggested 'car- pet-bombing Bugibba' – was that 'River of Love should be treated exactly like ISIS'. Un- like the comment for which you are being charged, that could conceivably be taken seriously. Were you, in fact, being serious there? Do you feel that religious organisations such as River of Love, are dangerous enough to be compared to a terrorist or- ganisation? I think the context of that post is important, as well. It was a few days after the murder of Paulina Dembska [Note: the suspect, Abner Aquilina, had attended a River of Love meet- ing shortly before the murder]. As for what I meant with the comment: yes, my intention was to state that this group should be seen as 'dangerous'. Obviously, there was a bit of hyperbole, there. I don't mean to suggest that they are literally go around, 'committing terror- ist acts'; but they are nonethe- less problematic. And I'm not the first person to have not- ed the problematic nature, of some of the things they do. So I think it's my right to have that opinion. At the same time, it invites us to consider the precise demar- cation line between 'satire' and 'regular commentary'. You have a satirical website – Bis-Serjeta.com – yet the com- ment itself was not actually on that site: it was something you said, in your personal capacity, in an online chat.. Yes, it was on my personal profile. One thing I will say, however, is that you don't need to have a satirical website, to make a satirical comment. With that comment, I was us- ing all the tools of satire – iro- ny and hyperbole – to make a point; and to make a joke, re- ally. Because at the end of the day, that's what is was: a joke… As jokes go, however, this one didn't go down too well. Not, perhaps, because some people took it as an intention to liter- ally 'bomb Bugibba'… but be- cause the comment itself could (according to some) be inter- preted as 'hate speech'. Do you see that as a possibility? Do you feel – like many other people do – that you may actually have 'crossed a line', there? No. And as for the differ- ence between satire, and hate speech: I would say that one of the more common gener- al definitions, is that satire should 'punch upwards': it should speak truth to power; and hold power to account. One definition I read recently, that I really liked, was that sat- ire 'comforts the afflicted, and afflicts the comfortable'. Hate speech, on the other hand… sometimes, the defini- tion can a bit hazy; but I think that, generally, hate speech has to be directed towards people who are vulnerable; people with protected characteristics: such as sexuality, race, and so on… Couldn't the same be said for religious organisations, though? Especially fringe ones, like River of Love? How would you respond to their own (pre- sumed) argument that… "Hey! We're actually the 'vulnerable ones', here?" Well… if you look at all the Bis-Serjetà articles I've writ- ten about the Catholic Church, for instance – obviously, this one was in my personal ca- pacity; so it's slightly different – but if you count the number of articles about the Catholic Church, as opposed to River of Love… I think you'll find the proportion is skewed heavily towards the Church. Because if something is an 'organised religion' – and it's the right there, in the name: an 'organised' religion. These are institutions with sway, and influence; and with a certain amount of financial backing as well. So I think the difference is that: if I were to go after one individual from River Of Love, that would be problematic. But I think that commenting about them, as an institution, is acceptable: given also their public profile. After all, this isn't some small, little church in a garage somewhere; this is a well-known organisation… Interesting, that you mentioned 'going after one individual'; be- cause actually, you 'went after' around 23, 112 people – in oth- er words, the entire population He may be the prime suspect, in an alleged attempted 'carpet-bombing' of a town numbering more than 23,000 inhabitants; but as far as satirist MATT BONANNO is concerned, he's still ' just someone who writes funny stuff on the Internet'