Most politicians have become accustomed to insults and colourful language hurled their way by opponents, but recent weeks have shown them less willing to close an eye when the line is crossed into what they perceive as a direct threat.
Emmanuel Navarro was arraigned in court recently after writing on Facebook that Nationalist MEP Roberta Metsola deserved to be “burned alive”. The 66-year old was initially denied bail, but was allowed to return home after retracting the comment and apologising, though the charges remain.
Another man, Mario Baldacchino, is currently facing similar charges after telling Partit Demokratiku MP Marlene Farrugia, also on Facebook, that she was “digging her own grave”.
Yet while the court has shown in both cases that it does not take such matters lightly, some have questioned whether the two men are being scapegoated, and whether the comments, although clearly insulting, can really be said to constitute threats, particularly as both are common idiomatic expressions in Maltese.
Is this a question of freedom of expression being impinged upon? Should politicians, as the defense lawyer in one of the ongoing cases said, just get out of the kitchen if they can’t stand the heat?
“There is a right to insult but not a right to threaten,” Mark Camilleri, chairman of the National Book Council and a founding member of Front Kontra ċ-Ċensura told The Sunday Times of Malta.
READ: When every car outside your door becomes suspicious
“The issue is that drawing the line between insults and violent threats is easy in technical terms but harder in practice. There are many expressions which sound violent but do not carry an intention of actual violence, so the courts should always have the discretion to consider the context and the intent.”
For Mr Camilleri, who was also involved in drafting a new press reform law which he says partly addresses this issue, the distinction should rest on the intentions of the person making the ‘threat’, not whether the person receiving it felt threatened. In other words, an offhand remark does not become a threat of violence simply because of how it is received.
“As with someone who feels offended by something, individual perception of what is threatening will always be different,” Mr Camilleri said. “What the court needs to consider is the possibility of real violence.”
The question, however, looks very different on the receiving end.
“Of course you feel afraid. After a while you get used to all the threatening calls and anonymous letters, but you never start taking it lightly,” said PD MP Godfrey Farrugia.
Both he and his partner, Marlene Farrugia, have experienced countless threats beyond the cases where they have pursued the matter to court. And in the wake of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Dr Farrugia said, the threats have taken on a more serious quality.
“We didn’t drive Marlene’s car for six weeks, until a technician checked it over,” he said. “She receives so many threats she’s stopped showing them to me; she’s finding it harder to stay in touch with constituents because she’s had to stop answering her personal phone.
As with someone who feels offended by something, individual perception of what is threatening will always be different
“Isolated incidents would be easy to ignore, but the problem is when it’s constant and persistent. When it becomes part of your routine daily life, it starts to eat away at you.”
OPINION: This is public intimidation, writes Michael Briguglio
For Dr Farrugia too, then, context matters: in this case the context of sustained attacks victims often have to endure – what he describes as “coordinated psychological warfare” – as well as a growing context of intimidation, and impunity, he sees in the country as a whole.
From this point of view, the precise intent of the person making an apparent threat becomes less important.
“Let’s say the person threatening you is just hot-headed, and doesn’t intend violence themselves,” Dr Farrugia said. “But there are others listening who may be influenced by what they say. There are people who succumb to these things, who can be built up into a psychological state where they decide to take action.”
Michael Briguglio, the former Alternattiva Demokratika chairman and now PN local councillor, is also worried about an increasingly threatening atmosphere in the country, which he believes goes beyond direct threats of violence.
He gives the example of a young woman activist, whose name and photo were recently shared across Facebook, singling her out after she took part in a protest outside Castille.
“In my opinion, that is a threat,” Dr Briguglio said. “The message is, ‘I’m watching you’.”
He stressed, however, that not every insult should be punishable by law. Indeed, Dr Briguglio was one of the organisers of the recent Civil Society Network protest in Valletta, during which an image of the Police Commissioner was pelted with vegetables. Dr Briguglio said he didn’t agree with the action, which he called “indecent” and “in bad taste” but permissible by law.
“In politics, it’s very normal to receive insults,” he said. “But someone saying ‘you deserve to be burned’ isn’t an insult. The intentions of that specific person may have been idiomatic, but we’re in a context where a journalist has just been killed.
“Everyone has to be more careful about how they speak.
“If someone feels threatened, and if they feel the threat has a certain weight, they should report it. Bullies don’t know any other language, and you have to protect yourself. There’s no way of knowing whether a threat is credible or not.”