Fifty-four years ago, Rocco Abdilla was awaiting the outcome of a court case after he had been charged with vilifying the Catholic religion through a poster addressed at Archbishop Michael Gonzi.
It was June 4, 1961 when he and another two men stuck the poster to the facade of the Żurrieq Labour Party club ahead of the archbishop’s visit to the village for the feast of St Catherine.
The poster bore the Latin words: Ave Nero Urbs Quam Incendisti Te Salutant (Hail Nero, the city you burnt salutes you). This landed him a two-month jail term.
How Times of Malta had reported the Rocco Abdilla case on July 20, 1961.“I wanted to defend the club and the party. In those days there was a lot of tension and things were escalating,” Mr Abdilla, now 82, said from his Żurrieq home. He was glad to hear the law that landed him in court could now be repealed.
“They realised it was wrong... I just expressed what I was thinking. Such a law doesn’t makes sense,” he said.
The poster aimed to highlight that Mgr Gonzi overstepped his role as spiritual leader when he entered into a political rift with the Labour government, then led by Dom Mintoff, over Malta’s integration with Britain.
On July 19, 1961, Mr Abdilla was acquitted of vilifying the Catholic religion but found guilty of contempt against the archbishop.
An international debate about the line between respect for religions and freedom of expression erupted last January following the terrorist attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo over controversial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.
On Wednesday, the government unveiled a series of proposed legal amendments to strengthen freedom of expression. These include completely repealing articles 163 and 164 of the Criminal Code that make it illegal to vilify the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion and other religions.
They realised it was wrong. I just expressed what I was thinking
It will still be illegal to disturb a religious ceremony, as article 165 will remain in force but will no longer be limited to the Roman Catholic faith.
The Malta Humanist Association welcomed the proposed removal of the blasphemy laws, which date back to 1933. In 2012, over 99 people were convicted under these laws, the association said, adding: “There is no reason to hold religion to a different standard than any other ideology. Religious beliefs have a strong influence on people – sometimes even those who do not espouse that belief – so these beliefs must be open to criticism the same as any other school of thought.”
But lawyer Arthur Azzopardi begged to differ. He believes vilification of any religion should be a crime because, otherwise, there was no protection for people to practise their religion in peace.
“This has nothing to do with censorship. Freedom of expression has its limits and religions deserve more respect,” he said, arguing that keeping article 165 was not enough.
For theologian Fr René Camilleri the proposed reform was a piecemeal approach because the Constitution still stated that the religion of Malta was the Catholic religion, which was compulsory in schools.
“Censorship, the old style, is anachronistic in a digital era. Yet, a void in this area can also be detrimental to public morality itself. What, of course, we all acknowledge in this day and age is that religion is not the sole agent or source of morality. So the legislative framework itself, not being subjected or necessarily conditioned by religious morality, should set down its own parameters and criteria on what is and is not morally accepted. Keeping in mind that today it is what offends persons and their dignity that constitutes a criminal offence,” he said.
A Curia spokesman said the Church would react following internal consultation by the Archbishop.