Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/584253
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2015 17 News WAS the vilification law of 1933 a benign law in- tended to protect reli- gious sentiment, or was there an ulterior motive for the then Legislative Assembly to approve it? The passage of this law occurs in the aftermath of the first political- religious conflict (1927- 1932), a conflict centred on the question of the political power of the mostly unelected Senate, which was a bulwark for the reactionary interests of the time. During this period, the reformist Com- pact alliance of Lord Gerald Strickland's Constitutional and Paul Boffa's Labour Par- ty, was pitted against an anti-reformist block consisting of the professional, landowner and clerical classes represented by the Na- tionalist party and the Church. Events came to a head with the imposition of mortal sin on the Compact, resulting in the subsequent landslide win by the Nationalist Party of the 1932 elections. The vilification law of 1933 was part of a consolidation of power by the Nationalist government of the time, and was intended to provide protection for the politically meddle- some Catholic Church and to repress its crit- ics, as a very revealing debate in the Legisla- tive Assembly on 13 February 1933 shows. Nationalist Prime Minister Sir Ugo Mifsud: (In Italian) "The aim of the law is to proceed with the punishment of certain crimes against the religious sentiment, and to do so an amendment to Criminal Law was required… It is a fact that that the reli- gion of these islands as recognised by statute is the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion; it is therefore expedient to discipline violations, or better, crimes against religion since these refer to crimes against this religious sentiment… …. I refer in particular to the painful events of the feast of Pentecost of 1930. I note, Mr. President that in our opponents' press and in certain segment of the English press incited by our political opponents, a campaign against this law is underway." Clearly, the vilification law was a matter of public controversy as the reference to the need to discipline events like those which oc- curred during the feast of Pentecost, shows. One must realise that shortly before Pente- cost, the Archbishops had imposed mortal sin on the Compact parties through a pasto- ral letter in May 1930, and that an attempt had been made on the life of the Constitu- tional Party leader Lord Strickland. The letter warned that it was a "grave sin" to vote for Strickland or those who "support- ed him in the fight against the rights and the discipline of the Church." What happened on the day of Pentecost it- self was that about 60 Compact supporters walked out of St John's Co-Cathedral after the Archbishop chose to deliver his homily in Italian and not in Maltese. This then led to a clash between the Compact supporters and a number of members of religious organisa- tions, with the Compact supporters singing 'L-Innu tal-Bandiera Hamra' (The Red Flag) and waving red handkerchiefs. The Bishop was also insulted through 'an obscene gesture', and the commotion was so great that the police had to use a cavalry charge to disperse the crowd. It is instructive to quote from the debate a few examples of the Catholic triumphalism and fanaticism of the legislators, for instance to clarify the reason be- hind the discriminatory treatment reserved for the Catholic religion as opposed to other 'cults tolerated at law'. Carmelo Mifsud Bon- nici: (In Italian) "The crime against the domi- nant religion is a 'reli- gious' crime and is punished to protect the religious sentiment of the nation; that against the tolerated religions is a crime of public or- der, since no one should be disturbed in pro- fessing the religion one thinks is true …" Dr Giuseppe Cremona: (In Italian) "The expression 'tolerated cults adopted by the legislator', is in my opinion the best that one could wish for, since a tolerated cult means a non-recognised cult and less and less an ap- proved of cult, for he who tolerates does not recognise…" These assertions could have been taken to be a product of their times, were it not for the fact that Dr Paul Boffa, showed other- wise. The only Labour member returned to the Assembly after the imposition of mor- tal sin, it was left to him to defy the stifling conformism, suffering in return the bullying and ridicule of the other self-congratulating members of the Assembly. For instance, when he dared to suggest that the bill was unconstitutional because it dis- criminated between religions, and suggested that all religious sentiments should be safe- guarded, the replies he received were: Salvatore Borg Olivier: (In Italian) "So speaks he who treats everything as merchan- dise!" Giuseppe Micallef: (In Italian) "Let us protect the phallic religion then!" (Laughter) Unlike his detractors it will always remain to Boffa's credit that in this difficult climate he dared to utter what could not be uttered, a defence of freedom of conscience against clerical attempts to repress all free-thinking and all attempts at the social reform of so- ciety: Paul Boffa: "I should say that not only the different religions be duly safeguarded, but al- so individual convictions… [the Bill is] vague because it was liable to a wide interpretation which would have created a privileged class of persons over other classes… It is stated in the Bill that anyone vilifying any Minister of any religion shall be liable to imprisonment." And when Mifsud Bonnici justified the need to protect the priesthood from vilification because of their social status, Boffa bravely raised a question which hung unanswered through the rest of the debate: (In Italian) "Even when they attend political meetings?" Perhaps the many prominent members of the ultra-conservative rear-guard, with their evident eagerness to endorse imprisonment as the right remedy for religious dissidents and iconoclasts, will not mind me saying that they are today's worthy heirs of those members of the Assembly of 1933. Their law against the vilification of religion was neither politically neutral not benign in its original purpose. Ingram Bondin is a member of the Front Against Censorship INGRAM BONDIN combed through the parliamentary debates of 1933 to find out how vilification was pushed by the Nationalist Party in the aftermath of the first political-religious conflict 'Reactionaries used vilification to repress Church's critics' great that the police had to use a cavalry charge to disperse the crowd. It is instructive to quote from the debate a few examples of the Catholic triumphalism and fanaticism of the legislators, for instance to clarify the reason be- hind the discriminatory treatment reserved for the Catholic religion as opposed to other 'cults tolerated at law'. Carmelo Mifsud Bon- nici: (In Italian) crime against the domi- Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, minister for police in 1933 judicial conservatism and the wide berth granted to religious sentiment and preju- dice. Is 'offence' victimless? How far should we go in claiming for ourselves a right to offend? Our liberal so- cieties have been tested by the murderous attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices. Sure, Christians can take it on their chin when a French satirical newspaper desecrates the Trinity in an act of auto-fornication. But should we risk 'Muslim retaliation' for sati- rising the Prophet? Joe Sacco, the Maltese-American car- toonist, meditated on the subject of vapid and gratuitous offence after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in a cartoon for the Guard- ian. He drew a black man holding a banana falling out of a tree, and a hook-nosed Jew counting his money: caricatures that often made the press in the 1930s. Not funny by today's standards, he surmises, as he asks whether Muslims enraged by European satire do not just 'lack a sense of humour' but whether this is a reaction from an an- tagonised and marginalised community. Stephanos Stavros, the executive secre- tary to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), and a former référendaire in the European Court of Human Rights, says that Article 10's pri- mary beneficiary of protection should be those who create the offence, but not those who take the offence. Stavros however adds that governments are positively obliged to protect religious worshippers from hate speech or threats. He cites the Karaahmed case (2015) where the Bulgarian national police failed to in- vestigate properly threats made against a mosque during a demonstration. "While freedom of expression is unquestionably a key European value, human-rights law cannot ignore the weakest, who are of- ten the victims of hate speech. And while there can little disagreement that criminal law should be used sparingly in the field of freedom of expression, one should not lose sight of the powerful message it conveys and the role it can play in shaping public opinion," Stavros writes. And it is perhaps at this intersection that Malta's overhaul of religious vilification ap- pears to be heading: locating a crime of 're- ligious vilification' not merely at the point of offence, but where it threatens people's security by virtue of their membership of a religious faith. In the past, the law was invoked to charge proselytisers from other faiths, satirists, Satanists, artistic producers, politicians, journalists, and pranksters. But religions and ethnicities who iden- tify with a faith should be protected from incitement to hatred – speech and actions that threaten people's security. Religious offence is a victimless crime, the prejudice of the one who beholds it. Australian law The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 contains prohibitions that are designed to protect people from vilifica- tion because of their race, religion, sexual- ity or gender identity. The legislation seeks to balance the right to freedom of speech with the right to be free from discrimina- tion, harassment and harm. It is unlawful to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person because of their race, religion, sexuality or gender identity, by a public act. This gives rise to a civil claim, but it is a criminal offence if the unlawful vilification includes a threat of harm to a person or their property. Examples of unlawful vilification in reli- gion would be a building's outside wall was painted with a swastika and the words "No Jews." Exceptions that ensure that freedom of speech is not unduly restricted, include a public act done reasonably and in good faith for purposes in the public interest, including discussion and debate; or for academic, artistic, scientific or research purposes. mvella@mediaatoday.com.mt Newspaper Il-Berqa reports the Legislative Assembly's debate on 'the priests' law' in 1933 Article 10's primary beneficiary of protection should be those who create the offence, but not those who take the offence