Labour leader Joseph Muscat has admitted that his party did not mean to back a legal amendment that has introduced tougher penalties for the distribution and production of pornography.
He said the controversial amendment to Article 208 of the Criminal Code, approved by Parliament in April, was passed as a “measure of stealth” by the government, having been sold to the Opposition as part of a “package of laws to strengthen penalties for child pornography”.
The amendment to the article was made together with various other amendments to laws mostly relating to child pornography.
Admitting that his party had not carefully evaluated what it approved, Dr Muscat said his MPs would not have backed the legal changes had they known they did not have anything to do with child pornography or protecting vulnerable people.
Dr Muscat recently came under fire from the Front Against Censorship for approving the amendment to Article 208 – the same article that the Front has been asking to be changed.
The Front said Dr Muscat had agreed to its proposals only some weeks ago during a meeting, and so it did not follow that the Labour party would back such a change in the law, which went contrary to the Front’s cause.
Dr Muscat pointed out that the decision was taken during a parliamentary committee meeting last April so this was definitely not a case of saying one thing to the front and changing its line soon after.
He added that he had no intention of censuring the Front’s criticism but insisted that Labour was the only party with the chance of governing that would ensure such laws would be sensible and balanced by protecting minors through a classification system.
“Our door remains open to the Front,” he said, adding he sought to look for common ground rather than nitpick about divisive issues.
Article 208 makes it illegal to produce or distribute pornographic or obscene articles but does not give a definition of what makes an article pornographic or obscene, except to say that it is up to a parliamentary committee to come up with such definitions.
But the last definition was given in 1975 by a parliamentary committee that was only recently set up again to come up with updated definitions.
Until then, the definition remains that works are obscene or pornographic when the “dominant feature is the exploitation of, or unnecessary emphasis on, sex, criminality, fear, cruelty and violence.”
This is the same article under which 21-year-old student editor Mark Camilleri was charged for publishing a graphic story in a student newspaper at the beginning of this year.
During a recent protest by the Front, Mr Camilleri Article 208 was, to his knowledge, only ever used against artists.
Meanwhile, when contacted, he said he “greatly” admired Dr Muscat for trying to solve the problems caused by his colleagues within the party.
However, he said the party must take responsibility and be accountable for what it said and promised, even if the vote had been a mistake.
“(Labour MP) Owen Bonnici had claimed prior to the vote in April that he did not agree with the prosecution of artists according to Article 208 of the Criminal Code. To my knowledge, this article was never actually used for pornography but has only been used to prosecute artists.”
He added that if the Labour Party was honest, it should now take up the responsibility of rectifying its mistake by putting forward a Bill in Parliament to erase this article once and for all.
When the Front had criticised the amendments to Article 208, the Ministry of Justice said this was “a clear indication that the Front either failed to understand the aim of these amendments or that the Front does not endorse the same values the people of this country have consistently upheld.”