Most societies have a tradition of the sacred: that which is sublime and untouchable. If Act 113 passes as it is, God and religion will, in a real sense, no longer be sacred in Maltese law. The sacred and untouchable will, instead, largely be the artist and free speech.

But there are still two factions in Parliament. There are those who want the freedom of art and speech to be the untouchable. And there are also members of Parliament who insist on setting limits to the permitted vilification of religion.

A good 72 per cent of Maltese have recently said they want the law to prohibit cartoons ridiculing Mohammed while 82 per cent said the same about cartoons about Christ.

The Maltese heart bears respect and tolerance that calls for limits, not for a free-for-all. Are the MPs listening?

Thankfully, the amendments about pornography are not a free-for-all. In spite of all the claims by certain proponents that pornography cannot be defined, the formulators of the Bill have acknowledged that children should be protected. In order to protect them you need to define what you need to protect them from.

So the law defines pornography, goes on also to define extreme pornography as well as vengeance pornography. Where the definitions are not clear enough, the government will issue guidelines on where to draw the lines.

Adults are given the right to view pornography (but not extreme pornography), as long as the establishment that shows such pornography displays a warning whose wording is specified by the law. (Incidentally, the English and Maltese versions are in conflict: each wants it in its own language.)

Then there is also clause 208(3) that seems to my un-legal mind to rule that many of the limitations mentioned in the previous paragraphs would not applyto “any material… which, otherwise, serves the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern”.

It is a good thing that greater freedom is given in art and other pursuits for the public good, though one wonders why a gram of public good should justify a ton of what is elsewhere seen to be harmful.

The contrast with the treatment of vilification of religion could not be greater. Pornography is allowed under set conditions while the vilification of religion carries no prohibition and no conditions. Artists may celebrate the freedom to kick a crucifix across the theatre stage - an act that was prohibited in Malta in 1996 - but how far does this freedom go, my un-legal mind wonders.

Does it allow such sacred objects as crucifixes to be so treated not only in a theatre but also in the street – possibly even in a church (which, it seems to me, is only protected when a service is taking place – or, possibly, when churchgoers refuse to turn the other cheek, so that a public order issue kicks in)?

Legal minds, please explain: will there be such a free-for-all or will other laws afford reasonable protection of religious practice? How can you ensure the constitutional right to religious expression if the right for the sacred can be turned into an endangered species?

Legal minds have, in fact, identified Australian laws that do not introduce a free-for-all. Section 8 of the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 prohibits religious vilification that involves conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, another person or group. But section 11 allows it “if the conduct was reasonable and in good faith in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in, for any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose”.

The Maltese heart bears respect and tolerance that calls for limits, not for a free-for-all

Why two weights and two measures?

Why is permission of pornography subject to conditions in the projected Maltese law while there seems to be a condition-less freedom for vilification of religion?

Why do we not consider setting appropriate conditions similar to Victoria State’s? We could also learn from Victoria by introducing room for discretion in our amendments about pornography by inserting such words as “reasonable”, “in good faith” and “genuine” (or maybe “substantial”), which are nowhere to be found in the dangerously black-and-white Maltese Bill.

So, please, MPs and political parties, listen to the majorities.

First, it would be immoral if voting is forced on party lines, though, equally so, to vote about such a tricky subject without adequate study.

Second, do not in any way prohibitcriticism of any religious group’s beliefs, role and conduct. Such criticism should be allowed.

Third, allow plenty, almost unlimited, room for vilification in artistic and similar activities.

Fourth, do not allow a free-for-all in ‘un-artistic’ and similar activities. Vilification directly attacking what is sacred to religions cannot take place ‘out of the blue’ and anywhere and under any conditions but under conditions similar to those in the State of Victoria law that restrict the vilification, in that State, of religious groups.

We must explore and make sure we have ways of restricting the offending of people’s cherished holy objects andsymbols but without reviving theprohibition of ‘unprovocative’ blasphemy or having to stop the bona fide eating of beef because a cow is sacred to particular people.

Fifth, give the public the right to be warned. Attending an artistic activity featuring the vilification of the sacred, the public should have the right of a warning before booking or entering. Vague words like ‘language some people will find offensive’ is insufficient and patronising. Many people do not mind strong sexual language or spectacle but draw a line at religious offensiveness.

Sixth: protect not only services but extend that remaining protection to places of worship.

Seventh, be realistic and allow what comes from abroad, for example on the internet. Do not punish internet providers if they do not block access to vilifying material or expect them to control what is outside local control. We should respect our own identity but not at the price of cutting ourselves off from the world.

Charles Pace is a specialist in social policy.