Slip on an obscene amendment

It doesn't happen very often, if ever at all. But the opposition was caught napping during the debate on an amendment to article 208 of the Criminal Code. Essentially, the amendment dealt with toughening up penalties on those found guilty of child pornography. But it had more to it than that.

The catch-all also includes purported pornography well outside dastardly abuse of children. The case against the writer and publisher of a short story written in explicit language as some macho Maltese do speak it and published in a University rag falls under it. The hefty increase in penalties correctly aimed at disseminators of child pornography covers the short story case as well.

The Front Against Censorship was evidently thoroughly unhappy with this development, an unbelievable one in this day and age. Among other things, the Front accused the opposition of saying one thing - against undue censorship - and doing another, by giving its backing to the amendment in the House of Representatives.

The charge damages the Labour Party's image as a progressive movement. Labour leader Joseph Muscat was quick to react. He did so in a quasi-healthy fashion. He admitted that the opposition had erred in backing the amendment but attempted to pin the blame on the government side, accusing it of "stealth" when it imposed tougher penalties to protect children from pornography.

Dr Muscat, who is developing a penchant for frankness uncommon in the political class, would have done better had he said sorry, our mistake, and been done with it. Nothing happens by stealth in the House. Draft amendments are spelt out in black and white. It is up to all MPs to understand, dissect and analyse them properly. To err is human. The opposition committed a human political error. Full stop.

Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, who moved the amendment, took the opportunity to round upon the Labour leader over the weekend, denying the government had done anything backhanded. He said he had acted correctly and both sides of the House agreed they had to fight child pornography. Who doesn't?

Yet, very few also go along with the notion that a writer and his publisher should be prosecuted for writing a literary piece, purposely didactically titled Repair What You Break, because it reflects how some unspeakable men do speak and act, and making them liable to imprisonment for up to one year (the amendment to the Criminal Code increased that from six months).

In fact, had the Justice Minister intended not to classify a writer facing prosecution in the same wicked category as child pornographers, he should have taken the opportunity to redraft that section of the Criminal Code completely. Given that the last definition of obscenity was made 35 years ago, he should have considered leaving literature out of it completely.

Nevertheless, if his standards demanded of him that he should still allow some provision in the Criminal Code against writers overreaching his idea of good standards he could have put them in a separate article or sub-article.

As it is, the mess is done. Depending on the interpretation of the court of the style and content of the short story and the intention of its author, we may still end up with a modern writer having to serve a term of imprisonment in this our Malta of AD 2010. Sounds ridiculous to contemplate but it can happen.

If the Justice Minister does not want it to happen he should put forward a fresh amendment to the Criminal Code. This time I am certain it will be supported by the opposition for the right reasons.

To leave article 208 of the Criminal Code as it stands would be obscene.