Having read Ingram Bondin’s contribution (September 9) as to why the vilification law should be repealed, I can now confirm my suspicion of the attitude, spirit and misguided ideas behind this unfortunate Bill before Parliament.
You see it is all about pre-war politics, a law proposed by the Nationalists in some clerical fervour to accommodate the Catholic religion as part of a general fascist scheme of things!
Bondin dismisses the argument that the vilification provision of our code applies to all religions by arguing that the punishment which applies to other religions is less severe. That is not the point. In substance the offence applies to all religions.
The Church in Malta has already publicly stated that in this day and age the same punishment should apply to all religions: but to use this difference in punishment to propose the repeal of the provision altogether is not logical.
Indeed, one must state that considering that the law was enacted in 1933 when the entire population was strictly Catholic in observance of its religious duties, the extension of the crime of vilification to all religions was, by the standards of that time, indeed liberal and progressive.
The distortions of Maltese history abound in Bondin’s contribution. It is not true that socialist activists were arrested by a Nationalist Government on grounds of sedition. This is not true as the arrests were issued by the Governor.
At that time, sedition was a reserved matter for the British Imperial Government which had through an ordinance enacted a law on sedition – withoutof course referring it to the Maltese legislature. Incidentally, this law is still on the statute book (Cap 71).
The 1921 Constitution provided for a diarchical form of government and the so-called ‘reserved matters’ were in the exclusive hands of an Imperial Government over which the Maltese Government, composed of Nationalist ministers, had no power or jurisdiction.
This fact was acknowledged by Labour leader Paul Boffa in the Legislative Assembly on April 12, 1933.
But such is Bondin’s obsession with linking the current law with ‘Fascist’ policies, that he stumbles on what should have been obvious to any scholar of Maltese political history.
The assertion that the crime of vilification of religion is a fascist-inspired law beggars belief. In Italy, where the state religion is no longer the Roman Catholic Faith, article 403 of the Italian Criminal Code, amended in 2000 following the new Concordat with the Holy See, still prohibits the vilification of religion.
Anyone who “publicly vilifies a religious faith through vilification of those who profess it” is punished by a fine of €1,000 to €5,000. Both centre-right and centre-left governments have retained this “fascist” provision.
The assertion that the crime of vilification of religion is a fascist-inspired law beggars belief
So has the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 166 of the German Criminal Code states that “whoever publicly or by dissemi-nation of writings defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years and whoeverpublicly or by dissemination of writings defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a Church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise”.
The European Strasbourg organs have repeatedly stated that the retention of similar provisions in the member states of the Council of Europe does not constitute a violation of freedom of expression under the European Convention.
In the Otto-Preminger case (1994), a prosecution under an Austrian law, the European Court of Human Rights upheld the Austrian vilification/blasphemy law as necessary in a democratic society in order to protect the rights of others who are entitled not to be insulted in their religious feelings – a “fascist- inspired” judgment according to Bondin’s scales of assessment!
Incidentally, Austria still retains the vilification provision in its Criminal Code (art. 188) for “anyone who publicly disparages a person or thing that is the object of worship of a domestic Church or religious society, or a doctrine, or other behaviour which is likely to attract legitimate offense”.
Presumably another EU member state with a fascist-inspired law retained by centre-left governments which have governed Austria for the past decade or so.
A second judgment is that of Winghrove vs United Kingdom (1996) relating to a film which vilified the ecstatic visions ofSt Teresa of Avila.
The European Court stated that in matters of religious sentiments the member states had a wide margin of appreciation in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals or especially religion.
The court drew a distinction between the expression of views hostile to religion and vilification, which consisted of a high degree of profanation. And the list continues…
One final point.
Some have said that the vilification of religion will remain a criminal offence but only as a contravention.
This is not true. The crimeof vilification of religion willbe abolished.
The criminal offence of disrupting a religious activity will remain, but is being demoted to a contravention.
Disrupting a Corpus Christi procession will be punished to the same extent as disposing of dirty water in a public street.
What surprised me is that Bondin, in his foray into Malta’s pre-war history and his Don Quixote search and witch-hunt against anything remotely smacking of fascism in his mind, did not call for the repeal of the special provisions in the Criminal Code and the Standing Orders of the House, introduced by our then colonial masters, against vilifying the Governor and today the President of Malta.
Perhaps that is a pleasure-yet-to-come and a future cause for the Front against Censorship!
Tonio Borg is a former deputy prime minister and European commissioner.