Justice and Home Affairs Minister Dr Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici told Parliament on Tuesday that the government considered the Criminal Code (Amendment) Bill as another step forward to update and strengthen the Criminal Code and ensure that society would continue to be more civilised.

Introducing the Bill, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said it was of great importance as it was presenting five important clauses which updated the democratic structure of Malta. Three had an international context while the other two were purely local.

The first three amendments included dealing more seriously with crimes related to racism and xenophobia, the strengthening of the 2003 amendments dealing with terrorism, and the introduction of clauses to deal with acts of piracy.

Speaking of xenophobia and racism, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said Malta was following an EU directive which had come about after six years of deliberation. Malta had participated in, and contributed to the debates leading to the integration in the Criminal Code of greater control over this sort of behaviour. A war crime perpetrated because of race or religion was by far more serious, and the amendment sought to increase the crime by one to two grades. This had to be done without damaging the balance between democracy and "this horrifying phenomenon".

The minister said the 20th century had seen some of the worst racial discrimination, such as those in the concentration camps in Rwanda and East Timor, and the government felt it repugnant to allow behaviour and speeches that incited this behaviour. Naturally, this was not enough to do away with racial sentiments. There were other avenues, such as education and the media.

The EU's major advantage was that it offered a holistic approach to dealing with such issues, and the message being sent was that the EU was determined not to go through such experiences again.

Maltese society was just and tolerant by nature, and always helped others. It followed that it should not allow the seeds of hatred to be sown.

The International Criminal Court sent a message to all dictators that these were not acceptable, and according to the 1998 international treaty, criminal steps would be taken against them.

The second clause dealt with amendments already outlined in 2005 with respect to acts of terrorism. The global outlook had changed and terrorism was still a very real problem. The amendment proposed that anyone who publicly encouraged terrorism, or trained someone else to carry out such acts, would be heavily penalised. Anyone involved in any way with such a crime, without necessarily carrying it out, faced a sentence of between five years' and even life imprisonment.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said piracy was not a thing of the past as people had thought it was. Many countries had joined forces to curb it. As Malta did not have military strength, it sought to implement heavy penalties for the criminals.

Turning to the two "local" amendments, he said one provided for bringing to book those who did not pay alimony towards their children's upkeep, and the other dealt with those who broke bail conditions.

Clause 338 of the Civil Code had had to be amended four times since 1983. It stipulated that it was a contravention for someone ordered to pay alimony to fail to do so.

He said that at times it was a matter of spite between the parents that might lead the father to fail to pay. This was not acceptable, the more so if a person was taken to court for this matter twice. The relapser now faced a detention period of up to three months or a fine of up to €200. This was being done to ensure compliance and deter repetitions of the same behaviour.

The Bill was also strengthening the courts' hand with regard to bail. Disregarding the conditions of one's conditional discharge had always meant the forfeiture of freedom, but in 2006 the government had proposed criminalising the breaking of such conditions because it meant ridiculing or disobeying the courts.

The deterrent had worked in several cases, but later experience had shown the need to add another very important consideration. When one was sent to prison for breaking the conditions of the discharge, one should also forfeit the guarantee in the government's favour, even if it was a personal guarantee. Conditional discharge was a very important part of the judicial system, but the hands of justice must be strengthened. Opposition spokesman on Justice José Herrera said the opposition agreed with the Bill with certain reservations.

The first amendment to the Criminal Code with regard to racial hatred had been enacted in 2002, brought about by a strong influx of illegal immigrants which had created a shocking new phenomenon for unprepared Malta. Those measures, taken at the right time, were now being broadened.

Dr Herrera said there had been only a few cases of Maltese having been taken to court for racial hatred, and most had been freed. On the other hand, around 220 illegal immigrants had had brushes with the law. One had to be very careful about treating illegal immigrants because anything one did - handcuffing, releasing on bail and even detention - could be labelled "racial" by some or others.

The opposition was in complete agreement with the government on the need to eradicate racism, but it was against witch-hunts, because tolerance worked both ways. As the Bill stood, all the Palestinians who had demonstrated in Valletta could or should have been arrested for chanting anti-US or anti-Israeli slogans.

Dr Herrera said liberalism was not to be equated with libertinage or libertinism, but one should watch out against overkills. He agreed that denying the holocaust should be a crime, but the Bill was not balanced enough. By comparison, vilification of Malta's Catholic faith was to be sanctioned by just six months in prison.

He queried what the Bill meant by "condoning a crime against peace", which carried with it a term of eight to 24 months in prison.

The opposition agreed with laws against racism, and this Bill was going further to define racism, but it was against hysteria, overkill or disproportionate measures. Witch-hunts would lead to greater resentment of illegal immigrants. Tackling the concept of complicity in racial hatred should be by general proviso, without the need for a new clause in the Bill.

Dr Herrera said the clause about corporate liability was an innovation, but he did not agree that a company should be sanctioned to the cost of some €1.2 million because one of its directors expressed himself against a belief in the boardroom. Hierarchically, a term of eight to 24 months in prison did not denote a very serious crime, so why was it being considered with regard to racial hatred, which was serious? It made no sense to involve corporate liability in racism.

Piracy was again becoming a reality and needed to be put within a legal framework, especially considering that the Maltese shipping register was the fifth largest in the world. It was therefore right to inflict harsh penalties for piracy.

Continuing yesterday, Dr Herrera said that like the government, the opposition believed racial hatred had to be eradicated. However, there were more serious crimes which merited more severe sentences.

If the Bill were to be approved in its present form, balance had to be redressed. If on one side there was an ever-growing influx of immigrants, which caused an economic burden, the government had to ensure that there was also legislation to safeguard Maltese citizens.

Riots at detention centres, where Armed Forces personnel were attacked, have to be covered in the Bill.

It was the government's duty to intervene in such cases, no matter what the United Nations said. It was all too easy to criticise, but what was the UN doing for international solidarity? What had it done about burden-sharing? It was the government that was responsible for security in Malta.

Terrorism was unacceptable in any form and it was growing at an alarming rate, even if Malta had not, so far, suffered its effects. But it was important to take greater precautions as Malta became more cosmopolitan.

Dr Herrera agreed with the amendment regarding contraventions for failure to pay alimony to partners whose children were born out of wedlock. There were now thousands of such children and the amendment was giving consideration to such relationships and recognising a reality that had not been present 20 years ago.

The penalties for relapsers were also being increased. Such cases were dealt with differently by the criminal and the civil courts because their sentences countenanced different aspects of the law. The magistrates sitting in the Criminal Court had to be given the right, at the opportune time, to reassess the amount of alimony to be paid.

Interjecting, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that this was being considered.

Dr Herrera disagreed with the amendment regarding bail. There was a new phenomenon in the local prisons, with more than 200 out of the 500 inmates being foreigners. Most of them were under preventive arrest. The government had to legislate that such cases must be dealt with by the courts much more expeditiously than at present.

There were cases where persons were judged after spending more than two years under preventive arrest. It should be left to the discretion of the courts to pronounce themselves on the contravention where conditions regarding personal guarantees were not fully met.

Concluding, Dr Herrera said there were cases where the prison sentence was disproportionate to the original offence because of the breach of bail conditions, and he suggested capping in such cases.

Labour MP Justyne Caruana agreed with Dr Herrera that the amendments addressed those who were being treated differently where alimony was concerned. One had to consider today's realities where several couples were having children outside wedlock, and there needed to be a deeper discussion on some clauses during committee stage.

She also referred to court cases which were being deferred constantly to the detriment to those who badly needed alimony. While suggesting that the courts see why such deferments were necessary, she said that a study should also be undertaken to see how these mothers were living and suggest what could be done during the period of deferment, as these people were close to the poverty line.

Children should be safeguarded and court officials should be appointed to represent them. At present there were only two lawyers representing children.

Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi said that this Bill was sending a message to the international community that Malta was committed to the fight against terrorism and piracy.

The Bill contemplated the introduction of new clauses aimed at battling a different form of terrorism, perhaps less noticeable than physical attacks - that of racism and xenophobia. For the first time the act of denying, excusing or minimising a war crime or genocide was to be considered a crime by the Criminal Code.

The Bill was motivated by an idea of zero tolerance towards what had happened in the past. It also introduced more serious penalties for crimes related to xenophobia.

Dr Azzopardi said there was no space for terrorism in today's world. Anyone who inspired or even incited such acts would be committing a crime.

There were more substantial penalties for anyone found guilty of piracy, he said, and the Maltese courts' jurisdiction on such crimes had been widened. This included crimes by a Maltese aboard a Maltese boat, or an act against a boat that belonged to Malta.

The amendments which dealt with alimony were necessary, proving that it was in the government's interest to protect the good citizens in Malta.

Franco Debono (PN) said it was desirable to legislate on xenophobia and on acts of piracy. Through increased jurisdiction of the Maltese courts protection was being extended to Maltese nationals and Malta-registered ships.

There was a unanimous agreement on alimony rights extending protection to children born in extra-marital relationships. The Family Court was very beneficial where mediation was concerned. It was important not to distinguish between children born to a married couple and those born out of wedlock. Those who failed to provide alimony and relapsed should suffer heavier penalties.

Dr Debono said that the amendments on bail conditions were well-advised and had to be observed. Those breaking bail conditions were to be brought to court under arrest. But common sense had to prevail where the accused failed to observe bail conditions that did not interfere with the severity of the offence. Discretion had to be left to the courts on the forfeiture of the bail bond.

Winding up, Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said that it was not by coincidence that the Bill which included racial hatred had been presented this week, coinciding with Commemoration Day. By so doing the government wanted to send a clear message that racism would not be tolerated. Dr Herrera had been very positive in his speech, but he had also mentioned the word overkill, as if the government had any intention of intruding on people's privacy.

Once the Bill was enacted into law, it would swing into force only when racial speeches were delivered in public to large sizeable audiences, or racial crimes were publicly excused or racial hatred was sown. Private expressions of opinion would not render an individual liable to action.

By no means was the government seeking to stifle freedom of expression. It was presenting the balance that had been achieved at EU level among the 27 member states, even drawing on the German experience in World War II and its post-war legislation.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the clause on corporate liability was being included to deter companies from making funds available for racial crimes. There were ways and ways of expressing opinions, and excusing genocide would be criminally condemnable. Who could deny the holocaust? The Bill was intended to address the root causes of racism, such as xenophobia and anti-semitism, that had led to World War II.

Racism must be strongly combated. When Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg had said the PN was not liberal he had meant that the party was Christian democratic and expected freedom to go hand in hand with justice. The PN's concept of freedom was different from that of liberal parties. The Bill was proposing a cautious line which would not endanger democracy. Democracy led to a flourishing society, economic stability and strong economic leadership. Failing that, all progress would be lost.

Dr Herrera had spoken as if there were an imbalance in the application of the law, especially between Maltese and foreigner. This was the wrong impression to give. Malta embraced the principle of territoriality, which meant that in Malta all laws were equal for all people. The forces of law and order all deserved and were in fact given due protection, to the extent that attacking any of their members aggravated any crime by one or two grades. The same sort of serious attitude was taken when a crime was motivated by racism or xenophobia.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that unfortunately, the UN working group that had recently visited Malta had not done enough to learn about the islands' particular conditions, and had not even sought to meet him. Among the group's erroneous pronouncements were that court procedures did not provide remedies. It was still a good thing that the working group had visited Malta because this would help the message to go through that Malta could not be left alone to face the problem.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he would leave no stone unturned to open all possible doors and get as many quarters as possible to understand the Maltese situation better, in the hope that those quarters themselves would help to make Malta's plight better known. It was a pity that such organisations were sometimes misled, and Malta must be shown to be doing everything possible in the circumstances.

Concluding, he said the government would be studying in detail Dr Herrera's suggestions to ensure a better, more foolproof law. The Bill was another important step to strengthen the texture of Malta's legislation.