The countries in Europe that continue to proscribe the vilification of religion, whichever that may be, do not do so out of religious piety or hardly on any moral considerations. The main butress in their argument for the criminal offence of such vilification is essentially one having to do with the maintenance of public order and the right of believers of whatever creed not to be offended or to be unreasonably provoked.
In the wake of the Maltese government’s recent removal of the crime of vilification of religion from our statute books, a significant amount of misconceptions were uttered. It seems that some relished the thought to be able to give life to Milton’s words “confusion worse confounded”.
The Opposition voted against the removal of the crime of vilification of religion during the committee stage of the debate on the Bill, now law, decriminalising such vilification. Allow me to explain in brief the main reasons why we did this.
Firstly, let us remove the cobwebs of confusion spun on the true meaning of the word “vilification”. To vilify is not merely to heavily criticise and not merely to strongly ridicule. Both our courts and the European Court of Human Rights have categorically stated this. It is much more and much worse than that.
The law on vilification of religion did not control the views on religion but the manner in which those views are advocated
It’s the worst form of obscene contempt for something that another person holds dear. Those saying that due to the crime of vilification of religion in our Criminal Code they could not ridicule or criticise religion in their writings are simply uttering a canard to deceive.
So much so that the Strasbourg Court, surely not a Neanderthal court, has repeatedly stated: “Religious believers cannot expect to be exempt from all criticism and must tolerate the denial by others of their beliefs.”
The flip side to this, from the same court is that: “The State has a responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of believer’s rights under the fundamental right to religion (protected by the European Convention on Human Rights). The State has an obligation to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and thus an infringememt of their rights, and which do not contribute to any form of public debate capable of furthering progress in human affairs.”
Thus the Strasbourg Court has upheld the law on vilification of religion in various cases. The law on vilification of religion did not control the views on religion, but the manner in which those views are advocated.
Another reason why the Opposition decided to vote against the removal of this crime is based on logic.
Our laws punish with imprisonment anyone vilifying the national flag of Malta (art. 5 of the Press Act) and with a hefty fine anyone vilifying even the coat of arms of Malta (art. 6, 7 of Chp. 253 of our laws). Moreover, anyone using defamatory, insulting or disparaging words, acts or gestures (much less serious than vilification) in contempt of the President of Malta, or even mentions disrespectfully the President is (rightly so) liable to three months imprisonment (art. 72 of the Criminal Code).
Is it logical or not for the State to declare as a criminal offence the actions or words listed above but not the deliberate vilification of any religion, including the State religion?
It would not be amiss to emphasise that the Opposition, in parliament, argued in favour of amending the law, not to decriminalise vilification, but to start affording equal protection to all religions, even to atheists.
We also proposed removing the aegis of the criminal offence from any artist and artistic work to avoid them being “torn” between observing the precepts of the law and giving vent to their artistic muses. The government refused.
It was also said Malta’s retention of vilification rendered us an ignoble exception among European countries. Another lie. We showed how other European states still punish vilification of religion. Italy (hefty fine, and retained even after Craxi removed the Roman Catholic religion from State religion in 1983), Spain (up to 12 months jail), Austria (up to 6 months jail), Germany (up to three years jail), Finland (up to 6 months jail) and Denmanrk (up to 4 months jail) still do so.
Last year the Danish Parliament debated whether the time was ripe to remove vilification of religion. It decided to retain it as a criminal offence in view of the troubled times we are living and to help maintain “societal order”.
As Ranier Fsadni wrote last year in this newspaper: “Removing the anti- vilification law in Malta will not 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.”
jason.azzopardi@gov.mt
Jason Azzopardi is shadow minister for home affairs and national security.