Each one of us is still reeling from shock and horror after the heinous and deadly attacks in Brussels. Coming so soon after the equally horrific attacks in Paris, we are all dumbfounded at the sheer scale and depth of the evil and carnage that deranged fundamentalists are unleashing in Europe.

We must all be firm as a rock and resolute in fighting terror in all its manifestations.

We cannot cower, nor be seen to bow, to any form of intimidation to change our way of life.

In parallel, wisdom dictates that the same unyielding firmness and resolution be addressed to avoid manifest and intentional acts of provocation.

In his article ‘Vilification and freedom’ (March 23), Martin Scicluna makes the case for the removal of the law prohibiting the vilification of religions. He wrote that: “Until now, with its archaic laws on blasphemy and vilification of religion, and draconian criminal libel laws, free speech in Malta has been honoured more in the breach than the observance.”

He finds solace in the canard spouted by this government that when Parliament removes the “archaic law of vilifying religion, the laws saying that ‘injuring religion with the aim of instilling violence or hate’ will still be retained” and thus the law’s objectives will be retained.

He concludes his article, which was published on the day after the deadly Brussels attacks, by this chilling clarion call: “We need more provocation, not less.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. No words could be more irresponsible at this juncture in our lifetime.

Let us get some basic facts clear. First of all, the crime of vilification of religion (Art. 163 of our Criminal Code) and the crime of incitement to violence or racial hatred on religious grounds (among other grounds) found in Article 82A of our Criminal Code, are two distinct crimes requiring completely different elements to subsist and be proven.

It is simply not true that vilification runs counter to freedom of expression

Secondly and more importantly, and as repeatedly declared by the European Court of Human Rights which has always upheld laws prohibiting vilification of religions, the Strasbourg Court endorses laws that seek to control “the manner in which views are advocated rather than the views themselves... The State has an obligation to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and thus an infringement of their rights, and which therefore do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs...

“Religious believers cannot expect to be exempt from all criticism and must tolerate the denial by others of their beliefs. However the State has a responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of believer’s rights.”

In Malta, as early as 1962 in the Rokku Abdilla case and as recently as 2009 (in both cases the accused were acquitted) our courts have made it very clear that for the crime of vilification to subsist, the specific intent to vilify needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. To vilify means much more than to offend the sensibilities ofothers, or to shock or disturb.

It is simply not true that vilification runs counter to freedomof expression.

The crime of vilification of religions is presently still found in the criminal codes of Spain, Italy (even after the 1983 Concordat which removed the Catholic religion from being the State religion), Austria, Germany, Finland and Denmark.

It seems we are in good company. I trust that no one will accuse the Finns or the Danes of not being liberal minded enough, or being “archaic”.

Most interestingly, the Danish Parliament last year, after conducting a detailed review into the legal and practical implications of a potential repeal of their anti-blasphemy clause, decided that despite the clause not having been invoked in court since the 1970s, it is “legally important” in that it gives the State the possibility to stop people burning Bibles and Korans and to punish those who do.

A Danish Foreign Ministry official was quoted as saying that the decision to maintain the law was based on the importance one attaches to free expression in relation “to protecting religious feelings, protecting minorities and sustaining societal order”.

This is precisely why the Opposition in the Maltese Parliament, which is calling for the repeal of the crime of criminal libel, has objected to the repeal of the present vilification law.

We went further and called for the law to be amended to afford exactly the same protection to all religions and beliefs, including atheistic ones (which the present law does not protect).

We are also proposing amending the law to give much more protection and exemption from the aegis of the vilification law, to artists.

That’s why I subscribe to Ranier Fsadni’s view, expressed in the Times of Malta in September of last year: “Moving the anti-vilification law in Malta won’t serve the cause of freedom. On the contrary, the removal might weaken it. You can be a humanist, consider religious worship per se to be infantile and still be in favour of such a law in principle.” Wise words.

jason.azzopardi@gov.mt

Jason Azzopardi is shadow minister for home affairs and national security.