Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1502123
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 25 JUNE 2023 8 INTERVIEW Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt Permission to speak freely In the aftermath of the criminal charges filed against you, Matt Bonanno and Daniel Xuereb, Gordon John Manché wrote an article in this newspaper: argu- ing, among other things, that: "The police took the reports seriously because they saw [the comments] for what they really are – threats and not just jokes." First of all: how do you yourself respond to that claim? Are we really talking about 'just jokes', here? I think that the problem is that – while there is space for a person like Manché himself, to express his own opinions freely – that same space doesn't seem to exist, when it comes to oth- er people expressing their own opinions about him. To put that another way: Gor- don-John Manché has often passed offensive, insulting com- ments about minority groups such as the LGBTIQ commu- nity, for instance. But as far as I know, he was never arrested, or prosecuted, for saying things like 'gay people are an aberra- tion', or an 'abomination'; and so on. And part of the reason is that – when evaluating that sort of comment – people (includ- ing the police) tend to take the overall context into considera- tion. In Manché's case, the ar- gument would be that he was speaking within the context of a religious organisation; and that – as a pastor of a church that holds down those beliefs – he is entitled to express even hate- ful, hurtful, and highly insulting comments, on the basis of 'free- dom of speech'. But then, the same thing does not happen when evaluating comments about Gordon-John Manché: which were also made within a certain context. In Bo- nanno's case, it was actually just a comment he uploaded on so- cial media. But Bonanno him- self is a satirist, by profession. People like him make a living – or try to, anyway – through satire. That, too, is part of the context that we're talking about here; and you can't just ignore that context, like it doesn't exist. The issue becomes even clearer, when looking at Dan- iel Xuereb's case: who was ac- tually quoted in the context of a 'stand-up comedy show'. Leaving aside that he was also responding to something Man- ché himself had said, earlier. At the end of the say, Xuer- eb's joke – and I won't go into whether it was a 'good joke', or not; because that's something else entirely – was that: 'Hey, we should listen to what Gor- don-John Manché says about anal sex; because, as Malta's biggest asshole, he knows what he is talking about...' Now: to be fair, Manché has every right to feel insulted, and offended, by that remark. But to accuse Xuereb of 'threaten- ing him', over something that was very clearly a joke, uttered during a comedy show – or, in Bonanno's case, to interpret his 'carpet-bombing' comment, lit- erally (even though it was very clearly satirical) - not only does that totally overlook the context in which those comments were made; but it also constitutes a threat to freedom of expression, in its own right. Even because, within our legal system, the po- lice have no option, really, but to act on those reports. So to me, that's a form of bul- lying. Manché is exploiting a le- gal... shall we say, 'loophole'; or a 'legal unclarity', if you prefer – to simply bully other people into silence... On the subject of 'legal un- clarity': there is an apparent conradiction, between the law that is currently being invoked against you – which defines 'uttering insults' as a 'con- travention' – and the Univer- sal Charter of Human Rights: which implies that 'freedom of expression' also includes the right to 'shock, offend, and dis- turb', etc. Is that what you're referring to, specifically? Yes, up to a point. Even be- cause - from a constitutional point of view - the European Court of Human Rights is sup- posed to automatically take precedence, in cases such as these. And this, I think, is the biggest issue, here: there is legal unclarity, with regard to what we are 'allowed' – or 'not al- lowed' – to say. Having said this: while I am obviously in favour of the 'sat- ire and artistic expression' ar- gument, in this discussion... I'm not speaking from a legal point of view. I've spoken to quite a number of lawyers on the sub- ject, recently; but I'm not a law- yer, myself. Nonetheless, I do think there need to be greater safeguards: in particular, for artists, satirists and so on. But I also think that there is legal unclarity, across the board. For instance: I myself am in fa- vour of 'the right to insult'; 'the right to offend'; 'the right to say anything you want', basically. But obviously, people need to be aware that there may be reper- cussions; and to be open to the consequences of what they say. Once again, however: it should work both ways. If people decide to take others to court, because they feel 'threatened' or 'insult- ed' over what was ultimately an artistic/satirical expression – and Manché has done this three times, now - those people should also be, in some way, li- able to the consequences of 'try- ing to stifle freedom of speech'. That way, it wouldn't be so easy for people like Manché, to keep filing one police report af- ter another... like he was 'buying a lolly-pop', if you know what I mean. I think I do know what you mean: but let's face it, not everyone out there will agree with you, that everyone should be 'free to say whatever they want'. At the risk of a devil's advocate question: don't those people have a point? You your- self admit that there are 'con- National Theatre director SEAN BUHAGIAR – one of three individuals currently being prosecuted for 'insulting' Pastor Gordon-John Manché – argues that Manché's actions constitute more of a 'threat' to freedom of expression, than satire