Last Wednesday’s General Workers’ Union daily, l-oriżżont, carried a backpage story saying the film The Interview is to be shown in Maltese cinemas in February. Why this was news, more so under a heading saying that nobody in Malta objected to the film, tells more than one story behind the story.

As everybody by now should know, the film is a trivial American farce about a fictitious CIA plot to assassinate the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. Those who saw the film have confirmed that the banality of the film is beyond imagination and that it would have probably been a box-office flop were it not for the reports about Sony Pictures being subjected to computer hacking and threats if the film is actually released.

Sony cancelled its premiere and withdrew the film from a chain of cinemas in the US where it was scheduled to be released, provoking many indignant comments such as the one by screenwriter Aaron Sorkin who said the US had succumbed to an unprecedented attack on our most cherished, bedrock principle of free speech.

Eventually Sony – who were even chided by US President Barack Obama for their decision – backtracked: the film was released and it may now be even download off the internet.

Initially the FBI concluded that behind the hacking was North Korea, which was angry about the film, although subsequently some US security experts pointed the hacking to a source other than North Korea… while the FBI stuck to its original conclusions.

The ‘news’ in l-oriżżont saying that nobody had objected to the film’s release in Malta originated from a comment made to the newspaper by a spokesman for the local film distributors, who was quoted saying that the film was a comedy and he did not think there was any reason for objections.

Some keep mulishly harping on the idea that dealing with other ‘undemocratic’ states is some stain on whoever deals with them

This sort of ‘news’ has no place in a democratic country such as Malta because it implies that if there were objections, these would have been considered. My memory harks back to 1977 when the Mintoff administration had ensured that the film Raid on Entebbe was not released in Malta, allegedly at the request of Muammar Gaddafi. In a reply to a parliamentary question, Mintoff had even defended the decision, saying the film glorified the violence of those who did not respect the integrity of an independent state. Mintoff, then, had invoked morality to justify an act of political censorship!

Of course, a lot of water has passed under the bridge in the past 40 years, and what was then meekly accepted by the common citizen would astound anyone who did not live those years. Yet, sometimes one still encounters people whose way of thinking and speaking reflects a mindset that should have long been dead and buried.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are some who feign being scandalised by Malta doing business with undemocratic countries. This attitude has surfaced recently with the interest that China has shown in Malta and, even more, in the case of the now concluded deal between Enemalta and Shangai Electric. Some US citizens and politicians have reacted with the same ‘closed mentality’ approach to Obama’s decision to start normalising relations with Cuba.

A quick but objective glance at the state of democracy in the world would immediately lead to the conclusion that those who live in countries where full democratic rights are respected and freedom of expression is paramount are, in fact, in a minority compared to those who live in countries where people do not enjoy such rights.

This is lamentable and we should always strive to support – at least morally – the daily struggle of fellow human beings who aim at winning these rights.

But this does not mean that countries where human rights are respected should close up and refuse to contact and do business with countries where people do not enjoy these rights; or that doing this business is tantamount to our approving of the political situation in these countries.

This is, of course, impossible in a globalised world, but some keep mulishly harping on the idea that dealing with other ‘undemocratic’ states is some stain on whoever deals with them.

Imagine if we were to start ensuring that we solely purchase commodities and products that originate from countries where human rights are fully respected. The price of such folly would be an economic disaster. No such thing happens anywhere.

China has an obvious strategy of pushing investment in the energy and transport sectors in all European countries and this investment is welcomed by everybody, whether it is in Portugal or the UK.

Objecting to foreign investment on the grounds of the human rights record of countries from where this investment originates reflects badly on one’s discernment of two separate issues – our unalienable respect for human rights and the practical upshot of globalisation.

Ironically, when it attempted to stop the release of Sony’s The Interview, North Korea did the same sort of muddle  even if it was the result of a warped view from the other side of the fence.

micfal@maltnet.net