Human nature is funny. We can love, laugh, cry and hate and do so without rhyme or reason. But is it any business of the government to interfere in some of these emotions?
I am talking about recent attempts to invoke hate crime legislation in an effort to make sure that European Parliament candidate Normal Lowell learns to play nice. The Times reported (June 16) that the government had asked the Commissioner of Police to start criminal proceedings against Mr Lowell should the police find sufficient proof that he had incited racial hatred.
Next day, the Broadcasting Authority accused Smash TV of misusing its Minibus programme by allowing Mr Lowell to offend public sentiments and encourage criminal behaviour that could lead to disorder. Quoting Article 83 of the Criminal Code, the BA said that anyone who speaks or behaves abusively, or exhibits published material that is offensive, with the intention of raising racial hatred, could be jailed for between six and 18 months.
In his electoral manifesto, Mr Lowell promised Maltese voters that, if elected, "boatloads of invading aliens would be mercilessly shot at sea". The Criminal Code defines "racial hatred" as hatred against a group of persons in Malta on the basis of their colour, race, nationality, ethnic or national origins. The boatloads of aliens whom Mr Lowell promised to shoot at sea are not "a group of persons in Malta". If he promised to shoot all aliens attempting to enter Malta illegally, that would not necessarily be racial hatred, because he was promising to shoot them all, irrespective of national origins. I'm not Mr Lowell's lawyer, but the police are unlikely to come up with a solid case.
Even if they did, should they prosecute? I believe not. Silencing a man who could only muster 1,603 first count votes is not worth the damage we would have inflicted on liberty. This relates to what is known as the paradox of freedom. The classical exposition of this paradox was described by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty in Utilitarianism Etc (London, 1910) p 83:
"... there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered".
In other words, unless we ensure to the enemies of freedom the liberties which they are keen to abuse, then we deny the essence of what we ultimately stand for and are, therefore, no better than those to whom we are opposed. Or as Voltaire has been paraphrased: "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Freedom of speech involves toleration of a great deal of nonsense and even of matters which are in bad taste. Freedom of speech has as its necessary corollary the expression of a wide range of views, some of which, of course, will be unpalatable, or clearly wrong.
While some may find Article 83 a laudable weapon against racists, it is really striking at hurtful speech or wounding words but imposing a serious restriction upon free speech. For example, if somebody publicly said that "Gozitans are a greedy lot" such a person could be prosecuted under the Act. Such a statement is a deplorable generalisation, no more applicable to Gozitans than any other ethnic group or nationality. But why give the statement any more treatment than it deserves - simply to be ignored? Doubtless, many Gozitans may feel deeply hurt by such a comment. But what mature person expects to pass through life without having wounding words spoken to him or her? Any sensible person can see that the statement reflects more upon the person who made it than it does on Gozitans.
The hate crime concept is fraught with pitfalls. Say, if Mr Lowell were to kill someone during a robbery, he would get life. But if he were to kill someone because he or she is Sudanese, then would that be considered a hate crime and he would get life-plus?
It's frankly confusing. Does the victim of a hate crime hurt more than the victim of a common assault? Is a dead robbery victim less dead than the person who became a corpse because of his skin colour? In Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, Shylock asks, after stating that he is a Jew: "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" Indeed, these are valid questions.
What's more, the term "hate crime" only seems to apply to crimes against minorities. Moving from the ridiculous to the sublime in the realm of hate crimes legislation one could imagine a law that would make slagging gay people a criminal offence. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? I guess in this era of celebrating victimhood, words have become as harmful and damaging as those sticks and stones.
I've always believed that the concept of human rights was limited to just a few, as in the right to pursue a peaceful life, the right to free speech and assembly, the right to have one's property protected under the law and, especially, the right to enjoy one's religious beliefs. Would it make sense to have freedom of religion be superseded by the freedom to enjoy one's gayness? Anyone who viewed being gay as an "abomination under God" would be guilty of a hate crime. As all three of the world's major religions officially view being gay in an unfavourable light, the majority of the people of Malta would theoretically be held guilty of a hate crime.
Even more sublime could be a movement to protect obese people from so-called hate speech. Calling someone "fatso" could become a criminal offence punishable by a stint in the slammer. I myself could be found guilty if I were to repeat my recent pun on Minister's George Pullicino obesity. Never mind that obesity, like smoking, is a lifestyle-related affliction, which could be remedied through the exercise of a little will power, of which Minister Pullicino has shown plenty recently. But then again, we are all victims and fat people are victims of the fast food industry and they should not be held accountable because they can't help themselves. Hence, referring to their "affliction" in derogatory terms could qualify as a hate crime.
I believe this is a dangerous trend as it sends the message that similar crimes committed under different mindsets do not warrant similar punishment. What's more, in defining words spoken as a criminal act, we all risk losing one of life's most basic human rights, that of freedom of speech.