The President’s Republic Day speech has divided opinion but one thing is clear from the extensive commentary and reportage: no one, not even those praising Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, take her very seriously.
But, perhaps, the President should not really be concerned. It’s apparent that, collectively, we do not take ourselves all that seriously, either.
To see why, let’s remember the ‘Hitler rule’: do not compare your political adversary to Hitler unless he too has exterminated six million people and plunged the world into a war that cost 10 times as many lives. Otherwise, you are minimising Hitler’s crimes and downplaying the horror suffered by his victims.
Perhaps we need a corollary, the ‘human rights rule’: do not issue impassioned public warnings about human rights being under threat unless you have expert legal advice stating so. Otherwise, you are minimising the crimes of regimes that flout human rights and downplaying the horrors suffered by their victims.
You’re even risking making people less sensitive to real human rights violations and, thus, more vulnerable to a real erosion of their rights.
Why do we need this new rule? Because here is what Coleiro Preca said (my translation) on Republic Day on the subject of “bloggers and individuals” who “spread hate among us” with the intent to inflict “psychological violence” on the person rather than attack his or her convictions:
“Freedom of expression gives no one the right to threaten human rights, including respect for family life and privacy.”
The President was here alluding to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
Now, here’s the thing: Article 12, like all human rights, is part of Maltese law. It’s part of the Constitution, of which the President is conventionally considered the guardian.
Shaming or disturbing someone cannot be construed automatically as violence or unethical
In other words, the guardian of our constitution solemnly declares that one of the fundamental constitutional rights is under threat – and our press simply reports it and moves on to something else.
I’m not aware of anyone who has actually commented on the gravity of what Coleiro Preca alleged.
That’s why I’m saying no one – not even those who praised the speech – takes her seriously. If they did, the headlines would have been about the head of State issuing a warning that our politicians risk being implicated in (threatened) human rights and constitutional violations.
And the politicians should, of course, have been outraged, insisting that the President either puts up or shuts up.
Instead, nothing. Silence. As though this is the kind of thing everyone expects from Coleiro Preca – gross imprecision and overexcited hyperbole in aid of a well-intentioned suggestion. So why don’t we just discount what she says the way we used to discount the old Italian lira – cut off three zeros and divide by four.
Except that, if we took ourselves and our rights seriously, the reaction of the press, at least, should have been different.
The President was making a specific reference to Article 12. And, on the face of it, it does seem relevant to her argument – although jurisprudence suggests that the article was originally meant to defend individuals against attacks and violations by the State and its agencies.
If we had the minimal amount of self-respect – enough regard for the office of President, our constitution and our rights – would we not recognise the gravity of the Republic Day speech?
Because if the President is right, then our fundamental rights are under threat and we should be clamouring for them to be safeguarded. No need for new laws. Human rights protection is there already.
And if the President is mistaken, then the situation should be equally alarming. It means we have a President who makes grave allegations too lightly and who doesn’t understand the burden of her office (including the weight of what she says for the human rights reputation of Malta internationally).
It would also mean that her judgement, on constitutional violations, is suspect, and that therefore we cannot be too confident about their protection.
Taking ourselves and our rights seriously means taking the President seriously. And she should be asked the obvious questions.
Is she relying on expert legal advice when saying that the rights protected by Article 12 are under threat?
If so, given the fine line between threatening to violate this human right, and actually violating it, has she actually taken any measures, permitted by her position, to protect this right – other than speechifying?
Given that Article 12, at least in terms of original intent, is aimed at protecting individuals from attacks by the State (and its agents) on their reputation and privacy, does the President draw a distinction between a blog run by oh, say the Prime Minister’s communications advisor, and a blog run by a private individual?
And should we not have had independent legal experts interviewed on whether they deem Article 12 to be in jeopardy?
And whether what the President has now repeatedly called ‘hate’ qualifies as hate speech or character assassination under the law, or whether it qualifies as scorn, anger and contempt – as uncharitable as you like, if you wish, but legal under many circumstances.
Coleiro Preca is indeed raising fundamental questions about our public life (not necessarily the ones she thinks she’s raising but she’s raising them nonetheless). While we’re at it, we could also discuss another of the President’s pet terms, ‘psychological violence’. What is the meaning of that term for lawyers and psychologists?
Simply shaming or disturbing someone cannot be construed automatically as violence or unethical – not if your anger is aimed at opening their eyes to really shameful behaviour (of public interest) on their part.
But, by not taking Coleiro Preca seriously, we’re showing what we believe about the office of the President and about our constitutional rights: that, deep down, it’s all schlock, just fancy words, a bog of fine sentiments.
Nothing solid that cannot melt into air the day someone ruthless decides he’s had enough of us.
ranierfsadni@europe.com