As a cultural institute we have the duty to voice our views on what is being written, not only in the print media but in blogs that are read by members of the public, both adults as well as minors. We are referring specifically to the issue concerning the Italian female citizen who requested the European Court of Human Rights to order the removal of the Crucifix from the school her children attended. The ECHR acceded to her request and if its ruling is not reversed by a higher court, it may be binding on all EU member states besides Italy, including Malta.
What is worse, we have noticed that certain local individuals who run electronic means of communication, are publicly expressing agreement with the judgment by stating that they do not accept the image of the Crucifix because it terrifies children! In other words, they are blatantly giving offence to the Catholic religion that is protected by the Maltese Constitution. The Maltese Constitution declares that the religion of Malta is the Catholic religion whose central and dearest symbol is the Holy Crucifix. Up until now the police have taken no measures to ensure that this offence to the Constitution is dealt with as it should.
Moreover, these same individuals are propagating material written for adults on the same electronic means which, as they are bragging, is read by thousands of people, including minors.
In other words, they are disseminating material that is dangerous to minors without carrying the relative warning that the same material is meant for adults and not for those under legal age. In this case too, the police have failed to investigate these same persons who are openly defying them to see whether they have the courage to sue them. The words used by these persons to this effect cannot be reproduced here on account of their base, foul and crude nature.
The authorities have already affirmed their intention to oppose the ECHR's ruling. How will they carry out this intention when they seem to be unable to check those local individuals who apparently agree with that ruling? Will they order them to cease and desist or do they intend to let them carry on due to the protection they apparently enjoy?