Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/712521
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 7 AUGUST 2016 17 Comment pid and even unconstitutional be- cause rights are universal and can- not be granted selectively. The Nationalists believe that vilification should be a crime pun- ishable by law because they be- lieve that it is a gravely immoral act, but they claim that the most important reason for such a law is to preserve law and order in socie- ty and to prevent the provocation of violence. Now it is also clear that when the Nationalists men- tion the issue of national security and violent provocations they also allude to Islamic terrorists, itself a scandalously wrong assumption. The notion that a vilification law is needed for national security defeats its own purpose. You do not need to be a security expert to understand that parading peo- ple to court for vilifying Islam will only exacerbate security problems due to the fact that you're making martyrs out of so called vilifiers, making the vilifying act which was the object of the prosecution even more popular in the process. The new laws as introduced by Labour do not give such a plat- form to those who want to vilify religions. Secondly, Simon Busut- til and Jason Azzopardi are not only empirically wrong in their as- sessment of the consequences of the law or the lack of it, but these are words that actually propagate this kind of fear of Islamic terror- ism, which ultimately only serves would-be terrorists who'd relish in dividing us and instigating hate between us. It is in this way that the Nationalist party is stooping so low as to use the Islamic terror- ist issue for partisan reasons and those who do so are of course very irresponsible, unaware of what they are actually implying and even dangerous. By invoking the idea of national security to conserve vilification laws, Simon Busuttil and Jason Azzopardi are directly promoting the idea that we should give up on our rights (rights which may even seem to be frivolous or irrelevant to some) for the sake of our own security – this is exactly what Is- lamic terrorists want us to do. Such political messages based on fear only give more strength to the aim of terrorism. As Europe faces an increasing number of terrorist attacks by Islamists fighting a violent jihad against Western civilisation, there are two directions that our de- mocracies can take. We can either move into an advanced capitalist dystopia where the right to private property and security are fully preserved against new restric- tions on our freedoms, or we may fight a spiritual war for peaceful coexistence between different re- ligions whilst preserving our most fundamental European rights and our way of living. I am very optimistic about the future of Europe and I strongly believe that Europe is collectively moving in the latter step, even if for example, Saudi Arabia or oth- er Arab-Muslim countries have occasionally made great pressure on EU institutions to introduce and increase blasphemy laws as was the case after the Danish car- toons were published in 2005. In 2006, Javier Solana, the EU's coordinator of foreign policy as- sured the Saudis that the EU would do its best to prevent any form of vilification of Islam and even prevent any further carica- tures of Muhammed to be pub- lished. Naturally, Europe, being the continent of freedom, was un- moved by the pressure from the Saudis as just a couple of years lat- er in Sweden, a country which has no blasphemy laws whatsoever, cartoons depicting Muhammed were again published without any legal consequences. In 2007 the Parliamentary As- sembly of the Council of Europe issued a document outlining its proposal for the abolishment of blasphemy and religious vilifica- tion laws across the European continent. In 2008 the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opin- ion and Expression issued a dec- laration stating that restrictions on freedom of speech "should be limited in scope to the protection of overriding individual rights and social interests, and should never be used to protect particular in- stitutions, or abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including re- ligious ones". As of today, only a minority of European states have existing laws outlawing blasphemy and religious vilification or are actu- ally enforcing them. The UK re- moved blasphemy laws in 2008, the Netherlands removed its blas- phemy laws in 2014 and Norway abolished its blasphemy laws last year after a 10-year process. Ice- land removed its blasphemy laws in 2015 in reaction to the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. Denmark, which Azzopardi has been using as his favourite example of a lib- eral country with religious blas- phemy laws, hasn't used its blas- phemy laws since 1938 despite the fact that Danish cartoonists have vilified Muhammed several times over. These are all facts that were conveniently avoided to mention during a campaign of misinforma- tion and lies in the press and in parliament on Labour's reform of censorship laws. Labour in Malta is today an ad- vanced liberal party which takes strong positions on civil liberties based on points of principle with- out resorting to dangerous popu- list measures. The concept of law adhered to by Labour is in line with the current and predominant form of European thinking on the right to freedom of speech: the line to free speech ends when the incitement to hatred and violence begins. We may be disappointed with much that is said and done on- line on blogs, newspapers and in televised debates, but this is the world we live in and we cannot prosecute and imprison people for their thoughts and beliefs even if they might seem stupid, insult- ing or offensive to us – if we don't accept this reality then we do not understand the basic fundamen- tals of democracy. Joseph Muscat has said we have to stay vigilant and not resort to racism, but we also have to re- main vigilant when it comes to our fights and freedoms. We should not lose our rights due to populist and dangerous dystopian ideas. On blasphemy and religious vilification laws the PN is not only misinformed and incongru- ous with its own purpose, but it is downright dangerous. The line is clear and the current legal framework strikes a bal- ance between our freedom and society's security. As much as we should fight hatred and racism, we should also preserve our rights in a fast-changing globalised civi- lisation. The insular thinking of the Nationalists is regressive and dangerous. Mark Camilleri is a historian and executive chairman of the Na- tional Book Council during a campaign of misinforma- tion and lies in the press and in parliament on Labour's reform of Labour in Malta is today an ad- vanced liberal party which takes strong positions on civil liberties based on points of principle with- out resorting to dangerous popu- list measures. The concept of law adhered to by Labour is in line with the current and predominant form of European thinking on the right to freedom of speech: the line to free speech ends when the incitement to hatred and violence We may be disappointed with much that is said and done on- line on blogs, newspapers and in televised debates, but this is the world we live in and we cannot prosecute and imprison people for their thoughts and beliefs even if they might seem stupid, insult- ing or offensive to us – if we don't accept this reality then we do not understand the basic fundamen- populist and dangerous dystopian ideas. On blasphemy and religious vilification laws the PN is not only misinformed and incongru- ous with its own purpose, but it is downright dangerous. The line is clear and the current legal framework strikes a bal- ance between our freedom and society's security. As much as we should fight hatred and racism, we should also preserve our rights in a fast-changing globalised civi- Clockwise, from left: Alia Magda Elmahdy, an Egyptian member of Femen, has stirred various controversies with her actions, here seen defecating on an ISIS flag. The Jyllands Posten cartoons that sparked world protests from enraged Mulsims. Hafsa, a 23-year old Saudi woman, posted pictures on her twitter account of herself stepping on a shredded Quran with red high-heeled shoes. Saudi atheists upload messages saying "Proud to be atheist". In 2002 novelist Michel Houellebecq was taken to court by Muslim organisations for saying Islam was "stupid" and "dangerous", but the courts acquitted him of any misdemeanour