Who is Karl 'Kaiser' Farrugia? Is he: (a) a martyr for the right to freedom of expression; or (b) someone who incites others to commit violence; (c) a 24-year old with an extremely questionable and offensive sense of humour; (d) a victim of the authorities' 'two weights and two measures' treatment when it comes to the application of justice; (e) some, none, or all of the above?
Your answer, will depend on where your sympathies lie in this case. Farrugia is the man who posted a comment on Facebook saying that the Pope should be shot in his hand, cheeks and his side just as Christ was. He was charged with inciting others to commit an offence and given a suspended sentence and fined €500.
His plight has attracted the support of many who claim the law is oppressive and impinges upon the right to freedom of expression. There's also a support group raising money to help him pay his fine.
Rather predictably, Farrugia's case has thrown open the whole debate about what is acceptable as a form of expression in modern society. Judging by the comments online and also by my belief in the importance of this right, I would lean towards thinking that prosecuting Farrugia for his comments was being rather heavy-handed.
After all, why shouldn't he be able to express his antagonism towards a spiritual leader who means nothing to him? Wouldn't I want to express myself as strongly if someone I opposed visited Malta?
Looking at it like that, it would appear that the judgment in the Farrugia case is totally unjustified. He or anyone else, should be allowed to say whatever they like.
But that's a rather simplistic view of things, which ignores the legislator's intention in having such offences on the statute book. Instigation to commit an offence and incitement to disobey the law are considered to be offences, because the legislator wants to intervene and prevent harm or injury before it is actually committed.
It is never going to be easy to distinguish between words which act as catalysts for violent crime, and other words which are merely offensive, but I think we should be wary of scrapping laws against incitement.
Would it improve matters, if, for example, adults attracted to children were tolerated when they set up Facebook groups where they discussed how they'd like to have sex with children? Or a Facebook group where the main topic was the desirability of desecrating the Prime Minister's mother's grave? Is there a world of difference between these examples and Farrugia's comment?
Of course, every action has to be taken in its proper context, and as Farrugia himself has explained, his comments were intended as a joke. Ultimately, this incident will not resolve much in the ongoing debate as to the limits of freedom of expression. It does show, however, that you can't legislate against hate or the utter crassness of some people.
Joseph Muscat's 15-point plan to combat corruption left me distinctly underwhelmed. Not because of the format of his proposals (How to Crush Corruption in 15 Easy Steps - A Manual for the Politically Inept) but because many of the suggestions are either legally dodgy or already in existence.
Take proposal number 16. This promises that a Labour government would give the opportunity to all who have information or have collaborated in cases of political corruption in the past to come forward by not taking action against them. Well, what can I say, except that this seems to be inspired by watching a surfeit of Mafia films, where pentiti suddenly see the error of their ways, and flock to the good side, being absolved of all criminal responsibility in the process.
I wonder if Muscat and his legal team have pondered long and hard about the advisability of such a measure. Taking criminal turncoats on board may result in some successful prosecutions but it also creates a situation where the turncoat gets off scot free, his part in the criminal activity conveniently cleaned away when he begins to sing.
Moreover, Muscat would have to find ways of weeding out unreliable pentiti who want to save their own skins. He'd also have to find some way of squaring the Labour Party's vociferous (and justified) objections about the Presidential pardon granted to Żeppi l-Ħafi in return for testifying in a murder trial, with his newly found faith in pentiti.
What's the difference between what Muscat is proposing now and what happened in that case? I think it's back to the drawing board with this proposal, and perhaps watching more repeats of La Piovra, or re-reading Gomorrah.
Muscat's final proposal is more superfluous nonsense. He wants to enact a law ensuring that party funds originating directly or indirectly from corruption are not used to help parties or individual politicians. Maybe someone should gently point out that such a law has already been enacted - 16 years ago. It is called the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and it prohibits the possession, use or retention of property (including cash) when one knows or suspects that this was derived or originated directly or indirectly from criminal activity, such as corruption.
Now, why would the Labour Party want to introduce a law which is already in place? I suspect this was one of those grand but pointless gestures politicians make periodically to show they're doing something about an issue.
But the battle against corruption is not won in this manner, with amateurish, bumbling initiatives which do not address the root cause, which is the all-pervasive culture of patronage and clientilism in Malta. And a lot of that patronage results from the close relationship between political parties and certain businesses and individuals which fund them.
You don't need to be particularly astute to figure out that the donations to the PL and the PN are not all coming from the whip-around at coffee mornings. Much of the cash comes from people expecting payback time, when the outfit they have backed financially makes it to Castille.
When payback comes in the form of preferential treatment, approved building permits and turning a blind eye, then that is corruption. If Muscat is serious about eradicating corruption, then he should propose a Private Members Bill to introduce a measure of transparency with regard to donations to political parties. Or he could simply publish a list of all donations made to the PL.
He should do this now, before another electoral campaign is bankrolled by contractors and hoteliers and owners of large estates. By doing so, he would prove that he's less talk and more action.
cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt