Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/580873
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2015 24 'B eware what you wish for'. Or so the trusty old saying goes. And the second that wishful thinking turns into reality, it's hardly what one really desired. Political ideals are one such example: once materialised, they create the opposite desired results. Countries that aspire to join the EU hope that becoming part of the common market will eventually create more economic possibilities and, by implication, more opportunities to become wealthier as a nation. But in this current atmosphere of nationalism and ruthless economic competitiveness, many Europeans are failing to remember that Europe is not only about the market, but it is also about solidarity, freedom and social justice. To be free is one of the most cherished political values in Europe and this freedom can be experienced in the form of speech, through art or the ballot box to name but a few. This freedom may offend people, and disappoint others, but you should still be able to bank on the right to enjoy it. Surely, the ideals of the Enlightenment live strong in Europe, and hopefully, right- wing populist governments which curtail the right to speak freely for the sake of "the national security" like Hungary's, will remain the exception in Europe. Surprisingly, Nationalist Party leader Simon Busuttil thinks that the criminal penalties against the vilification of religion should remain in force for the sake of our "national security". Never mind the new leaf: from Lawrence-Old- Regime-Gonzi to Simon-the- Young-Busuttil… the aspiring Europhile who descended from Belgian paradise to turn a new European and liberal page for the PN now has the party looking 'eastwards' towards Hungary. Once again all the untruths about Bill 113, the removal of the vilification of religion, have been sloganised for the masses, this time around for partisan reasons. Busuttil is not being truthful when he says that vilification of religion will lead to violence because, in fact, incitement to violence against religious groups is illegal and will remain so. Bill 113 also amends article 165 of the Criminal Code, increasing to a higher degree the penalty for serious crimes against religious communities. The arguments for criminalising the vilification of religion are completely illogical. Busuttil was quoted as saying that "you may have the right to insult, but not the right to vilif y". Now, a thesaurus might surely disagree with Busuttil's apparent ambiguity over the definition of terms, but after all, for power-hungry politicians, illogical arguments have often proved to be fine so long as they are populist enough to serve their interests. The play on words, the scaremongering, the patronisation, the authoritarian value of defending an abstract concept such as religion by law are all traits of this tiring conservative charade – a charade which, candle-like, is gradually getting darker and burning as it nears its end. After all, this is power discourse in its simplest form and Busuttil's rhetoric is as vacant as any supposed justification of the limitation of freedom of speech. Busuttil's argument is a true example of how a paradigm of power invokes a violent threat to justif y its own position. What he failed to envision when campaigning for Malta's accession to the European Union was that we would actually adopt or rather strengthen our European values, one such value being freedom of speech. So allow me to be clear again. No one is proposing religious antagonism, and the absence of a "vilification law" does not produce religious antagonism. In the European ideal, citizens may be offended with what others say or write about their beliefs, and this right to offend is a given right. The State should offer equal protection to all different racial and religious communities, but the State should not privilege your beliefs and protect them from satire, caricature or any other form of communication because beliefs such as religious and political beliefs are abstract concepts. We should be cautious of politicians who want to limit our right to criticise freely established religious beliefs in a subjectively "vilif ying" manner with an overriding clause of "national security". What Busuttil is saying is that if elected, artists and authors would once again experience censorship trials similar to those held under the previous Gonzi administration. As it happened, the government had then appointed minister Mario de Marco, the 'good cop' in the story, to appoint a commission to report on the reform of censorship laws. Then a civil servant was brought in to water down that report and have a 'report of the report' presented to the public. We shouldn't allow the Nationalists to scaremonger their way into power at the expense of our freedoms. Let's not forget that those crying foul over the decriminalisation of the vilification of religion aren't defending religious communities, but instead defending the hegemony of the Church which is ref lected in various political, social and organic aspects of our society and this hegemony has always served the interests of the Nationalists and played a big part to consolidate their power. Mark Camilleri is chairman of the National Book Council G enerally speaking, it means 'care'. And care, in turn, implies 'responsibility': as I suspect any parent reading this would instinctively know far better than I. Yet all three of these words seem to suddenly become meaningless, in any situation where the 'custodian' happens to be the Maltese state. Not, mind you, that we use them any less. Oh no, we still talk endlessly of 'persons in custody', for all the world is there was some sort of 'custodianship' actually involved in the equation. But while we might occasionally talk about the 'rights' of 'persons in custody', I have yet to hear a serious discussion about the 'responsibilities' of the State for their welfare. Not even when things go horribly wrong – as they have a bad habit of doing: often – the question remains hanging in the air indefinitely. What are the responsibilities of the police for the people they lock up at the depot, anyway? What is the responsibility of the seemingly non-existent prison administration at Corradino – still with an 'acting director', two years after the last one resigned over dereliction of duty in 2013 – for the 4,000 persons currently in its care? Considering that there have been at least four successful suicides of 'persons in custody' – not counting any of the reported/unreported suicides among asylum seekers in Malta's formerly overcrowded detention centres – in recent years, I think these questions deserve an answer. More so now that the latest 'police custody suicide' has revealed that not even the most basic, entry-level precautionary safeguards have been put into place following the other cases. This week, Police Commissioner Michael Cassar addressed the media to announce that a 'person in police custody' had committed suicide. In fact, about the only thing we actually know about this individual was that he was in police custody when he hanged himself from the barred window of his cell with a sheet. No, wait: we also know that he had been arrested for possession of 13 kilos of illegal drugs… 8kg of cocaine, and 3kg of heroin. That's not exactly your average Vice Squad raid on a party during Santa Marija in Gozo. I'm no expert on the current street prices of those drugs, but we are clearly talking about a bust worth hundreds of thousands of euros here: quite possibly more than half a million. Under normal circumstances, that would place the suspect in the category of 'highly valuable witness': the type whose information could conceivably expose and bring down an entire criminal network. In brief: NOT the sort of 'persuna detenuta' you'd want to have dying while supposedly under your 'care' and 'responsibility'. And yet, for some bizarre reason, the victim has not even been named yet; even though his family has already been informed of his death. Cassar kept alluding only to a 'persuna detenuta', as though his status as a detainee was more important than his identity. And even more bizarrely, it didn't seem to occur to any of the journalists present to ask who this 'persuna' actually was. Honestly, sometimes I just don't get it. The same Maltese press that is so quick to name a schoolteacher on mere suspicion (later proved unfounded) of child abuse, seemed entirely uninterested in the identity of a man suspected of involvement in a major drug-trafficking ring… and who died under mysterious circumstances in his cell, only hours before being charged in court (where he would otherwise have been given the opportunity to make public what he might have known). Seriously: does none of that excite even the remotest f licker of interest? In any other country, the Police Commissioner would hardly be able to get a word in through the barrage of press questions. But I suppose the important thing here is to dutifully repeat what you've been told at a press conference, right? Even when, at a glance, it doesn't seem to make much sense… For instance: Cassar was reported as saying "that although precautions were always taken and the force was always trying to improve matters, such incidents could still happen…." Naturally I don't doubt the last part of that sentence – it is obviously impossible to cut off ALL opportunities for in detention. But the rest of it doesn't really add up, does it? Okay, let's go back over the few facts that have been made public so far. The man was discovered hanging from the window of his cell, by a police inspector who was 'checking on him' as part of a routine inspection. It was 3:05am. He was given first aid on the spot, then taken to hospital where he received emergency first aid from medical professionals. All to no avail: within an hour he was dead. It is not clear from the Opinion Raphael Vassallo The word 'custody' Mark Camilleri Keeping religious vilification is about power politics The aspiring Europhile who descended from Belgian paradise to turn a new European and liberal page for the PN now has the party looking 'eastwards' towards Hungary