Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/563633
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 30 AUGUST 2015 Opinion 20 Opinion Two Charlies and a A s someone who believes that the State must be secular, because only such a State could secure my liberty, I keep finding myself on Charlie's side. When the Charlie Hebdo murders happened last January, I was one of thousands and thousands who uttered "Je Suis Charlie". I did not only put this on my FB page and shared my indignation, but for good measure I also wrote about it in MaltaToday at some length (Diversity and the freedom of interpretation, 13 January, 2015). In that article I said that "even by my secular standards I find some of the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo uncomfortable if not downright offensive", adding later on that, "while I retain my reservation, I would never think twice to openly declare 'Je Suis Charlie!' More so, I would not hesitate to hail Charlie Hebdo as that necessary line of defence by which a multicultural, diverse and free society must be sustained as the very expression of liberty and social justice." A difficult line to draw I remember His Grace Archbishop Charles Scicluna stating on Dissett that while he is Charlie, he is not Charlie Hebdo even though he utterly and unreservedly condemned the killings. His argument was not against the freedom of expression but against the depictions of religion in Charlie Hebdo which, to him were beyond the limits of being just offensive. I don't exactly remember his precise words, but I got the impression that not unlike many religious and other leaders from all faiths and creeds, he felt that clear lines should be drawn when it comes to the manner by which faiths and creeds are critiqued. I then understood that while he is not against criticism of such creeds, he is against the dissemination of hatred through such a critique. Like His Grace I do not like unsavoury and offensive forms of critique as they distract and turn people off from the real and important need to critique and debate. However I also know that not everyone regards such depictions as being offensive or even extreme. is urges me to think twice on how to draw and define a line between ridicule, offence and hatred. In this respect I cannot draw a straight link between a critique that makes me cringe and a systematised narrative of hatred. In visual and other forms of representation, there is an underlying aesthetic that is often missed, (partly because many think that aesthetics only deals with beauty), where violent and vulgar images operate on a mechanism by which people are moved to think beyond their comfort zones. e Church mastered this art long before satirical magazines. If you are doubtful, just leaf through art books, or visit a church adorned with violent and even erotic images that have been used to make people think about sin, death and sacrifice. I often recount how I found such images extremely frightening when I was a child, especially images of saints being beheaded, chopped heads being paraded, gouged eyes and slashed breasts on plates, skeletons, nude people being burnt… you name it. With another Charlie Not without paradox, I recently found myself leaning on His Grace's side when I heard him air his fears that creeds (and I presume he mostly has the Catholic Church in mind) could be left open to unnecessary abuse. I should clarify that I share His Grace's worry because I am of the conviction that only in a secular state could one find protection for the liberty to have, openly express and practise, a creed or none. Confused? You are not alone. I found myself in two minds about this, until I had to go back to what is currently being proposed in the form of a Bill "entitled AN ACT to amend the Criminal Code, Cap. 9. and to provide for any other matters ancillary or consequential thereto", and particularly "where Articles 163 and 164 of the Code shall be deleted." (Government Gazette Supplement No. 19,450, 10 July 2015, Section C, No 113). e two articles are now being referred to as the "vilification" articles, though in this Bill there is a much longer proposal on pornography. I won't comment on the porn bit as I am more interested in how the elimination of Articles 163 and 164 of the Code is coming across as mostly misinformed and misinterpreted both by the confusion that the archaic word "vilification" is creating, and because some conveniently regard this as another case where the Catholic Church is trying to keep its privileges — thus creating the usual and expected divide in opinion, which frankly, doesn't help either way. I read several articles to try to figure out where this is going. I am also told that there are moves to reinforce other laws that would help protect creeds and other lifestyles from hate crime. Indeed hate on the basis of creed is criminalised in Malta, but to what extent and how would this change in the code affect that? Some have argued that rather than decriminalise vilification, the State should go for a total protection of creeds and lifestyles by actually drawing a clear line on vilification. But how could this be done without leaving Malta in a barmy situation where impersonating a nun in Carnival would land you in jail as it is construed as a hate crime? What are we hearing from political parties and civil society? e information is hazy and confusing. We can only go by the published proposals, several articles, and by reading the various reactions to His Grace's pronouncements. I personally would be curious to see where this goes once it is discussed in Parliament, and whether there is any consensus; and if not, whether the fault lines become crassly partisan, which will make things worse. Double-bound challenges My fear is that here we are given a quick liberal fix, in that the deletion of these Articles would presume to secularise this realm of the moral imaginary simply by omission – i.e. by taking out archaic laws which don't make much sense today while reinforcing others, such as the law that criminalises hatred towards creeds or none. I call this omission liberal because it operates on the assumption that the State can only guarantee a negative form of liberty – i.e. a form of liberty that frees one to do whatever he or she likes without qualifying what these freedoms mean or count for. Here the expectation is that the barriers to such a form of liberty are taken away, somehow implying that this liberty is exercised by default. I am no theologian, but I can see why a church leader would find this problematic. As someone who advocates the need to have a secular common ground on which we can exercise freedom, I think that this form of negative liberty creates an unnecessary double bind in that it leaves a gap which may or may not be filled by a law against hate crimes, but which is not robust enough to guarantee an understanding of the freedom to exercise and express one's beliefs, ideologies, creeds, or lifestyle. John Baldacchino On decriminalising vilification, the State needs to have robust grounds on which society protects individual liberty through social responsibility, which guarantees equity of rights and opportunity through mutual respect and social justice