In my unsolicited but democratic opinion, our parliamentarians in general really have no shame.
The law against vilification (articles 163-165 of our ‘new’ Criminal Code) was never “first introduced in 1933” as our MPs have had reported in various sections of the media.
The now erstwhile crime was already an evolved part of our law for a very long time as results from articles 46-49 of the older Code promulgated on September 8, 1848, which in turn was based inter alia on General Sir Henry Pigot’s declaration of February 2, 1801, and Sir Charles Cameron’s of July 15, 1801, whereby “il Re accordava (agli Maltesi) loro piena protezione, e godimento di tutti i loro diritti, protezione di loro Chiesa e della Santa Religione, e delle loro persone e proprietà”.
One cannot forget Secretary Wyndham’s confirmation of May 23, 1803, that His Britannic Majesty had assented “che i privilegj dei Maltesi dovessero essere preservati e continuati in forza delle loro antiche leggi, essi furono allora governati dalle loro antiche leggi”, which inspired the eventual codifications of various ancient laws, including that about vilification.
I really do not want to know who is the genius who convinced our MPs that articles 163-165 were only first enacted in 1933 but going by the way the media took to this anachronism, I think it says a lot about our representatives who never bothered correcting it.
It probably goes over our MPs’ heads that by decriminalising vilification they have also rendered meaningless the greater part of our Innu Malti as well as the mottos of various local institutions: ‘Domine dirige nos’ should easily come to most minds, but maybe I am expecting too much. As for Article 2 of our Constitution, let’s not bother asking them to try understand it.
I suppose we’ll still be seeing our general body of MPs crossing themselves at all the usual conspicuous religious activities (more so at dates closer to elections) but, again, it appears perfectly fine in Malta to have no shame and pretend our nation was born only yesterday.
The decriminalisation pageant was nothing but an uber-hyped – and hurtful – exercise which could easily have been avoided by introducing sensible amendments instead.