Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/538516
2 maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 8 JULY 2015 News One of the last European states criminalising blasphemy IN 2009, a Council of Europe (CoE) study on freedom of expression and freedom of religion, proposed that it would no longer desirable for Eu- ropean democracies to criminalise blasphemy, and calls for the abol- ishment of such laws. Malta was then one of the few European states that penalises the 'public vilification' of the Roman Catholic religion with a maximum term of sixth months' imprison- ment – and three months for other religions. Greece still contemplates a higher term – two years' imprisonment – for 'malicious blasphemy'. The debate on so-called religious insult had at the time been brought to the fore by the Board of Film and Stage Classification's decision to ban the play Stitching, for reasons that included blasphemy. Adding to the dose of ecclesiasti- cal umbrage, that same year seven revellers at the Nadur carnival were arraigned for dressing up as priests. In their two-year study, the ex- perts of the Council of Europe's Venice Commission concluded that it was "neither necessary nor desir- able to create an offence of religious insult, that is insult to religious feel- ings, without the element of incite- ment to hatred as an essential com- ponent". The Commission argues that pluralism, tolerance and broad- mindedness means that freedom of expression should not be limited to protect an individual's belief from criticism. "The right to freedom of expres- sion implies that it should be al- lowed to scrutinise, openly debate, and criticise, even harshly and un- reasonably, belief systems… as long as this does not amount to advocat- ing hatred." The Commission argues that the offence of blasphemy "should be abolished" and that democratic so- cieties "must not become hostage to the excessive sensitivities of certain individuals" and "must not fear de- bate, even on the most shocking or anti-democratic ideas… persuasion, as opposed to ban or repression, is the most democratic means of pre- serving fundamental values." The latest revamp of laws also brings the Criminal Code in line with other reforms on the matter of censorship, such as the abolition of the 'censors' board' – the state- appointed board that classified dra- matic and other stage productions was removed in 2012 in favour of a self-regulating system of classifica- tion. The obscenity trial of novelist Alex Vella Gera and the publisher of a university pamphlet, Mark Camilleri, who reprinted a short story by Vella Gera, was the cause célèbre for the anti-censorship movement. Vella Gera and Camilleri were ac- quitted of obscenity charges on Li Tkisser Sewwi, first by a court that found in favour of their fundamen- tal right to freedom of expression, saying that public morality "was something that has changed over time... what offended public morals 20 or 30 years ago did not necessar- ily do so today"; and then on appeal, when Judge David Scicluna said that the short story had not violated pornography and obscenity laws. Alex Vella Gera Front Kontra C-Censura protest in Valletta in 2010 Three-year prison sentence for extreme pornography CONTINUES FROM PAGE 1 The amendments rationalise por- nography rules, retaining the maximum €3,000 penalty for the display of pornography in public places unless an adequate warning notice is placed in such public place, and where no mi- nors are permitted to enter. They amend the justice min- ister's power to create a com- mittee to make regulations that define what is regarded as por- nographic and obscene, but in- stead will allow the minister to regulate the definition of a new category of "extreme pornogra- phy". The new rules propose a three- year prison sentence and €6,000 penalty for "extreme pornog- raphy" – bestiality, necrophilia and explicit displays of rape – while creating a difference between public and artistic dis- plays of erotic art or culture that could fall under generic defini- tions of pornography. Criminal laws on the solicita- tion of under-age persons and sexual tourism adverts will be retained. It will now be illegal to cause distress and emotional harm by the use of revenge porn – dis- closing private sexual photo- graphs or film without the con- sent of the persons depicted in the photograph – which crime carries a punishment of up to two years' jail and a €5,000 fine. Vilification of art In a country where a play was banned from local theatres al- together (The Abridged Bible by the Reduced Shakespeare Company) because it poked gen- tle fun at the Resurrection of Christ, Malta's laws on religious vilification will be expected to accord more freedom when it comes to controversial artistic productions. In 2010, the Constitutional Court of Appeal upheld a ban on performing Anthony Neilson's Stitching, banned by the now defunct Film and Stage Classi- fication board because of what it perceived as blasphemy, con- tempt for Auschwitz victims, dangerous sexual perversions, a eulogy to child murderers and references to the abduction, sex- ual assault and murder of chil- dren contained in the script. Both the Civil Court and the Constitutional Court upheld the ban without viewing a perform- ance, while the Constitutional Court of Appeal declared the State was bound to protect the country's values and ensure the sensitivities of the "silent citi- zen" were not offended. The court added that the word "art" could not be used to cover blasphemy and the ridiculing of genocide. Although there is no such thing as a 'fundamental human right to offend ', international human rights case law indicates that such a right indirectly exists. In Handyside versus the UK (1972), the European Court of Human Rights ruled that "Freedom of expression... is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population." mvella@mediatoday.com.mt Anthony Neilson