Following his presentation, the speaker sat down accompanied by the usual polite applause that characterises academic conferences. He had just compared the media systems in four Arab countries. Why did you not include country X in your review, was the first question. “I lecture there”, he quickly answered, “and I don’t want to lose my job.”

Is that what he said, I asked a colleague sitting next to me. Yes it was.

The second academic was a female from Turkey. She was profound and critical. Together with many other academics in that country she is facing a court case accused of anti-state activities. For Erdogan, signing a petition that displeases him is a criminal act.

What a contrast! One academic is afraid to speak up and the other one is ready to risk not just her job but even prison!

Is an academic a true academic if he/she is afraid to speak up about his or her country? Are publications and employment by a university sufficient for one to become an ‘academic’? Should not an academic be on the frontline in the fight for social justice, good governance, an environment conducive to a decent quality of life and sustainable development, to mention just a few examples? Should not a de facto vow of silence about concrete issues negatively affecting vulnerable persons disqualify one from calling oneself an academic?

In a world dominated by ‘my-needs-above-everything-else’s’, silence is an option. In a culture of solidarity where everyone is considered to be everybody’s brother of sister, it is not decent to close one eye or stitch up one’s mouth. Cain has no place as one’s right to express oneself is not a right to be left nicely packed and left idle in a cupboard.

When I recently made the above arguments to a friend he challenged me: But you being a priest, should you not abstain from using this right? Priests abstain from using other rights, he continued with a smile to hammer the point home.

I agree with you, I immediately answered. He was surprised, as he clearly expected a different answer.

So why do you write things which some consider to be controversial and consequently could be divisive?

Writing and speaking on the subjects I address is the exercise of a duty more than of a right

Easy, I answered. I can abstain from using my right for freedom of expression. One can and sometimes should, forego one’s rights. But I cannot abscond a duty. Writing and speaking on the subjects I address is the exercise of a duty more than the exercise of a right. Silence is not an option for me.

The exercise to the right of freedom of expression and the duty to use it assiduously are important for the functioning of any democracy. Democracy is undermined if this right and duty are undermined by oppressive legislation as well as by threats of reprisals.

There is, however, a more insidious  yet subtle threat. This happens when one praises people’s right to freedom of expression but then turns a deaf ear and ignores what is said. The cynicism of this attitude is increased when one describes one’s attitude as a ‘listening one’.

The way the government behaved during the debate on the so-called Embryo Protection Act is a perfect example of such a cynical attitude. It invited consultation but then ignored anything that it was nor disposed from the very beginning to accept. This is a sham.

The government ignored 500 or so doctors and 100 academics who disagreed with embryo freezing. To put salt in the wounds of the two dozen geneticists who told him to change tack, the Prime Minister said that the law as amended is more solid. The Prime Minister sneeringly told two former members of his cabinet and the public at large, that he had an electoral mandate for freezing although this is manifestly not true. There is nothing in the electoral programme of the Partit Laburista that speaks of freezing and, or surrogacy.

Worse still, the government publicly humiliated the President of the Republic. She expressed her hope in that the law would not be morally objectionable when it reaches her desk.  The government ignored her.

Eddie Fenech Adami and George Abela, when president, had informed the government of the time that they would not sign certain laws as they objected to parts of them.  The Gonzi government did not present a bill to Parliament while Fenech Adami was still president. The Muscat government respected Abela by not presenting for his signature a law parts of which he found objectionable.

The Muscat government opted to forge ahead and present the President  with a law she found objectionable. The President signed (I think she was very ill-advised to do so) but opted not to remain silent and explained her position. The Deputy Prime Minister’s cynical reaction was that she has a right to her opinion.

Silence is not an option when faced by such cynicism.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt