Jokes about religion or religious figures do not shock me. Carnival costumes, cartoons, critical depictions of religions and beliefs do not disturb me. I welcome criticism of anyone’s working practices, including those of the Church and of any faith. I love those who are able to laugh at themselves. I cherish those capable of critical thinking. In fact I think we do not have enough persons capable of this.

To be honest, I think it is great that some have the courage to say that the Church is barmy. I am totally taken aback with how easy we let authorities limit our freedom of expression. The number of libel and defamation suits instituted in courts is an outrageous exercise in limiting freedom of expression.

I still do not understand how one can be prosecuted for wearing a carnival costume depicting a religious figure. I am even more dumbfounded when the accused admits to having committed a crime rather than claim an exercise of his freedom of expression. I am not one to pull the plug on any of the arts for religious sentiments.

Freedom of expression includes the freedom to listen, to think, to seek out facts, to disagree, to criticise and to state opinions. It is precisely that expression that shocks, mocks and disturbs which deserves the highest level of protection. In a democratic society debate is fundamental and very often it is these type of expressions that spur debate and change.

If I am so dangerous then why is it that I disagree with the move to repeal the crime of vilification? Simple answer: as a person there are characteristics which are fundamental to my being and for which I deserve protection from the State. I agree that I should not vilify the Prime Minister or members of the cabinet merely for the sake of disparaging them even if I often find myself harshly criticising their actions.

I do not stop short from vilifying the Prime Minister for his sake. In fact the law is not there to protect Joseph Muscat but more so to protect something fundamental to my being - my State.

I agree that I should not vilify the Prime Minister or members of the Cabinet merely for the sake of disparaging them even if I often find myself harshly criticising their actions

In a similar manner the State should protect atheists, non-believers and believers of any faith from vilification because this is a fundamental characteristic to the being of every person. What the government is proposing is not making criticism, jokes, cartoons or arts mocking religion, faith or beliefs lawful, but in making lawful the intentional act of abusively disparaging a characteristic which is so fundamental to persons who make up our society.

This runs counter to the government’s obligation to take active measures to ensure that it protects our fundamental rights of freedom of religion and of expression. In doing so, it must ensure that neither belief (including atheism and non-believers) is subjected to abusivedisparaging words or actions done with intention to negate the essence ofthis characteristic.

This is not whether the Church or any faith deserves protection but whether such a characteristic which is so fundamental to a person’s being is to be protected. In a multicultural society with many faiths and beliefs, it seems only logical that the State should not foster the vilification of any belief. Are we now telling our multicultural society that it is OK to disparage a group merely for the sake of attacking that group on the basis of its characteristic? Are we prepared for a society with these type of conflicts? While other countries are doing their utmost to diminish these conflicts that have also given rise to security concerns, it seems we are trying to do everything to get embroiled in these conflicts.

Freedom of expression, like all other freedoms, comes with responsibility, in this case the responsibility of doing what is necessary in a democratic society. What is necessary is to protect this characteristic cherished by each person from intentional conflict. What is also necessary to cherish that freedom of expression which is necessary in a democratic society and which criticises also beliefs. But criticism is not vilification, neither is humour vilification and nor are the arts a vilification.

If our society has ‘hotheads’ who feel offended by speech, art or humour and who would prefer not to listen or participate in this, then freedom of expression gives them the freedom not to.

They are free not to attend a play, read a book, see a cartoon or visit an exhibition which may offend them. This is not vilification. Vilification is the intentional action of belittling someone’s characteristic. This is not a freedom encompassed in freedom of expression.

The law does not need to refer to any specific faith since all faiths and beliefs deserve protection from vilification. But it is definitely the responsibility of the government to ensure that the characteristics that make up our beings are not trodden upon lightly. They may be mocked, criticised, analysed, and disagreed with but not brought to nothing merely to serve the whim of someone who may find it difficult to accept a characteristic which is so fundamental in a person’s personality.

Therese Comodini Cachia is shadow minister for education and employment.