Myths abound when it comes to debating the issue of whether the criminal of-fence of vilification of religion should remain on the statute book.

The first myth, propounded by the progressive and liberal lobby, is that this offence is a special privilege of the Catholic Church in Malta, a vestige of past Church dominance and superior influence. This is simply not true.

The Criminal Code prohibits the vilification not only of the Catholic religion but of any cult tolerated by law, a phrase which grants protection to all religions, not only the official one. Indeed the word ‘cult’ spreads the protection even wider.

The second myth is that the offence of vilification is a muzzle on freedom of expression. Again, this is a false assertion.

Vilification is not criticism, harsh though it may be. Vilification means the debasement of religion for the specific purpose of offending the religious sentiments of a segment of the population. It exists as an offence in other member states of the EU: not to protect religion per se but to protect public order: for the wanton vilification of religion offends the feelings of significant parts of the community, Catholic, Muslim or, indeed, of any other religion, and these sentiments deserve to be protected.

The abolition of the offence of vilification of religion is a misguided mission

It is one thing harshly criticising Church policy, or practices or, indeed, abuses; it is another thing vilifying the Holy Trinity through obscene caricatures just for the fun of wanton provocation.

Our Constitution, in article 41, protects freedom of expression. But this is not an absolute freedom. The Constitution itself allows restrictions which are reasonably required in the interests of public order, morality and decency or to protect the rights, reputations and freedoms of others. These restrictions can never be abused of and must always be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

A landmark judgment on vilification of religion is that of Police v Rokku Abdilla, decided by the Court of Appeal on January 13, 1962. The defendant, then a Labour activist, subsequently a Labour MP (1962-1976) and, later, a Nationalist stalwart, was arraigned and charged with fixing a poster to the facade of the Labour Żurrieq club greeting a visit by Archbishop Michael Gonzi to the locality with letters written in bold: “Ave Nero urbs quam incendisti te salutat” (Hail Nero, the city you burnt salutes you).

It was indeed a forceful, harsh and crude slander, particularly at the height of politico-religious dispute. Abdilla was acquitted of the charge of vilification of religion, for the words, slanderous though they were vis-à-vis the Archbishop, did not vilify religion per se.

In Malta, the Catholic religion is still considered to be the official State religion. In Italy, the Catholic religion was deemed no longer to be the State religion after the new Concordat in 1983. And yet the criminal offence of vilification of religion was retained.

It was only amended in 2000 to provide for the same punishment for vilification of all religions.

So, if a neighbouring country that no longer professes the Catholic faith as the State religion has deemed it fit to retain the offence of vilification of religion, why should the government of a country like ours, whose Constitution still proclaims the Catholic religion as the “religion of Malta”, delete the offence from the Criminal Code?

In Germany, blasphemy is covered by article 166 of the Strafgesetzbuch, the criminal law.

As Kevin Aquilina, dean of the Faculty of Laws, has pointed out (July 22), the enactment of Act III of 2002 introducing the crime of stirring up of violence and racial hatred, on grounds including religion, is not the same as the offence of vilification.

Having been the minister who piloted the Bill through Parliament in 2002, I agree with Aquilina when he says “Vilification of religion does not necessarily require the commission of any form of violence; nor does it need to be inspired by sentiments of racial hatred. The constitutive elements of both crimes are thus different and independent of each other. “

The abolition of the offence of vilification of religion is a misguided mission. The government should think twice before removing it from the statute book. If more ‘liberal’ member states of the EU – even those which have introduced abortion and, in certain cases, euthanasia – have retained it, why should Malta, whose traditions and culture are so much influenced by religious sentiments, abolish it?

Tonio Borg is a former European commissioner and Cabinet minister.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.