On July 7, 2015, the Minister for Justice, Culture and Local Government, Owen Bonnici, introduced a Bill with the quite non-descriptive title ‘Act to amend the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 and to provide for any other matters ancillary or consequential thereto’. Such non-descriptive titles are possibly normal. However, my logic finds it quite tautological to introduce a Bill “entitled” without a title.
As per normal practice, at the end of the document one can read ‘The objects and reasons of this Bill to update sections of the Criminal Code on crimes against religious sentiments… to provide for the better implementation of the right to freedom of expression with regard to the striking of the necessary balance between the right of everyone to receive and impart information and ideas and the need to protect society and vulnerable persons in particular from certain forms of pornography and indecency.
Can anyone see any relationship between “vilification of religion” and “sexual offences”?
Are certain forms of pornography and indecency offensive only to people who profess a religious creed?
Life can be ironic. In mid-August, a month after Bonnici started the first reading of this Bill, Tom Young, 23, spotted a black T-shirt printed with the slogan “Je suis over it” at the Bristol branch of the fashion retailer TK Maxx and complained that this shirt was mocking the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris.
Young told journalists that “it’s appalling that a global brand has allowed a T-shirt like this to be produced and sold in store. Even if the message did not intend to cause upset in relation to the tragic event, I am adamant it should be taken down from stores immediately.”
TK Maxx respected his sentiments (or their sales) and has withdrawn the T-shirt from sale across its 280 stores and apologised to any customers who may have been upset by stating officially, “No connection with the Charlie Hebdo attacks was intended or implied. Therefore, we have withdrawn the item in question from sale with immediate effect and fully support the brand’s pledge to destroy all remaining stock.”
The fashion website Asos followed suit and also removed these T-shirts from sale. Certain people are decent enough to respect emotions.
Yet another ironic occurrence. This time it’s the theatre. Not the stage of the parish hall in a small Maltese village, duly supervised by some arch-conservative, illiberal and narrow-minded Maltese priest. No. It’s the national theatre in London’s famous South Bank.
Whether the Justice Minister intends it or not, Bill 113 is a part of a process of forced secularisation
To cut a long story short, the play is Homegrown, by Omar El-Khairy, about radicalised young people joining Isis. The director is Nadia Latif.
This announcement was made: “NYT regrets to announce that its production of Homegrown will not now take place. Tickets are no longer on sale. All ticketholders will be fully refunded. Ticket holders will be contacted by National Theatre and do not need to do anything. NYT sincerely apologises for the inconvenience caused to ticket holders”.
Later, NYT issued this statement: ““The production of Homegrown will no longer go ahead. After some consideration, we have come to the conclusion that we cannot be sufficiently sure of meeting all of our aims to the standards we set and which our members and audiences have come to expect. All purchased tickets will be fully refunded.”
Latif and El-Khairy believe that the police and local authorities played a part in cancelling their show. And this happened a few miles away from the mother of all parliaments.
Let me return to the enlightenment of Bill 113. What is most interesting is that this intends to amend criminal law where it legislates on crimes and punishments on crimes against the religious sentiment. As things stand now, whoever publicly vilifies the Roman Catholic religion by words, gestures, written material or pictures or by some other visible means commits a crime punishable by imprisonment.
Besides, if one vilifies those who profess such religion (that is you, me and thousands of others) or its ministers, or anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated to, or is necessarily destined for worship, will be liable to the same punishment.
According to this Bill, insulting the religious sentiments of most Maltese will no longer be consider a crime but only a contravention. In clear terms, at law, the trampling on the Holy Eucharist in an insolent manner will become only a contravention, that is, equivalent to stopping your car under a ‘no parking’ sign.
In what way can this be interpreted as providing for “the better implementation of the right to freedom of expression with regard to the striking of the necessary balance between the right of everyone to receive and impart information and ideas”? The minister should have the courage to call a spade a spade: whether he intends it or not, this is a part of a process of forced secularisation.
The proposed law does not defend any right; it only offends the emotions and sentiments of many citizens who happen to belong to a religion culture.
Fr Joe Inguanez is executive director of Discern – Institute for Research on the Signs of the Times.