Hate mongering is the real threat

The ‘discussion’ around the removal of the crime of ‘vilification’ of the Catholic religion in our criminal code is anything but a discussion. The debate has deteriorated into more of a shouting match between two groups: the oversensitive fundamentalists and arch-conservatives who want to control every utterance from anybody who dares speak ill of their deeply held beliefs and those who see people as lone individuals failing to recognise that we live in a society made up of diverse groups and communities of people.

The word ‘vilification’ has been bandied around a lot. Probably this is the crux of why the ‘discussion’ has deteriorated. Everyone is defining ‘vilification’ differently. The Maltese version of the criminal code uses the word ‘tkasbir’.

‘Vilification’, to me, means much more than ‘tkasbir’. Probably ‘tixrid tal-mibgħeda’ is more apt. If by ‘tkasbir’ the criminal code means that whoever criticises belief systems or even pokes fun at certain beliefs runs the risk of prosecution, than it should be made clearer.

What worries me is systematic campaigns inciting hatred against and attributing ulterior motives to whole groups and communities of people.

So no, dressing up as Christ and the Apostles at the Nadur carnival shouldn’t have led to the prosecution of the young men involved, some years ago. It should have never been considered as ‘tkasbir’. But in my book, systematic hate campaigns and hate speech, which may lead to the ostracising of whole groups from society, and even violence is unacceptable in a democratic society.

You may say that I’m exaggerating but the path that led to the Holocaust started with a systematic campaign of the spreading of hatred and vilification of a whole group of German, Polish, French and Italian Jewish citizens.

The same happened in the Balkan wars – a systematic campaign of vilification (defined as hate) of former Yugoslav citizens who happened to be Muslims, ended up in the murder of thousands upon thousands of people. The same systematic vilification campaign is waged by the far-right Israeli press, parties and organisations against Palestinians. And what about fundamentalist Muslim organisations waging wars of hate against bloggers, journalists and common people, mostly Muslims too, not sharing their world view?

In the State of Victoria in Australia, the term vilification in their ‘Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001’ is defined as behaviour that incites hatred, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of a person or group of people because of their race or religion. The legal definition is conduct that ‘incites hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule’.

As with all laws it depends on the common sense of law enforcement agencies and if a case ends up in court, to magistrates to use their brain cells to apply the law rationally and throw out silly, trivial and facetious cases. If we use the Australian definition of ‘vilification’ - spreading and inciting hatred, then it should remain a crime to incite hatred against all groups of people. Not just of one particular religion, and not just on the grounds of religion.

The State of Victoria’s Human Rights Commission website lists examples of behaviour that could be seen as vilification, again defined narrowly as hate. The examples are: speaking about a person’s race or religion in a way that could make other people hate or ridicule them, publishing claims that a racial or religious group is involved in serious crimes without any proof, repeated and serious spoken or physical abuse about the race or religion of another person, encouraging violence against people who belong to a particular race or religion, or damaging their property, encouraging people to hate a racial or religious group using flyers, stickers, posters, a speech or publication, or using websites or email.

The examples cited make sense. If we want to live in a society in which people respect one another, behaviour leading to hate, bullying, ostracisation and violence should be deemed unacceptable at law. Not just in the case of race and religion but also hatred against persons with disabilities, LGBTIQ persons, persons of different political and philosophical persuasions and ethnic groups.

Back to Bill 113 and the shouting match about ‘vilification’ in Malta, the deletion of parts of the criminal code specifying Catholicism in particular and the replacement by ‘all religions’ – considering every group as equal before the law is positive.

It would have been better if inciting hatred and hate speech (which is what to my mind vilification really means) is included and defined specifically in the criminal code. The article prohibiting the disruption and using violence to disrupt religious services remains.

What needs to be done is to stop the theatrics in Parliament – from the over the top reactions by PN MPs, to what seems to be a lack of will for a meaningful and hyperbole-free discussion on the government’s part. From those claiming that ‘vilification’ means the same as ‘criticising’ (when it obviously does not), to those who speak of a fictitious ‘right’ to say and do whatever one wants, anywhere and anytime.

A specific and particular legal definition of ‘vilification’ might be in order – to refer to hate mongering and incitement to violence. What we must also realise is that it is impossible to legislate for all possible occurrences and that ultimately we depend on the good sense of enforcement agencies and the courts to use common sense and spot the dangerous from the harmless.

What’s important to me is ensuring that the law is clear enough to ensure that being critical of a religion or debating racial, philosophical or religious ideas in a way that does not encourage others to hate racial or religious groups and actions or conduct undertaken as part of an artistic work, for a genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose, or any purpose in the public interest and conduct that was meant to be private, that is, seen and heard only by people in a private gathering, should in no way be considered as ‘tkasbir’ and not even ‘vilification’ and surely not hate mongering.

If the shouting match stops maybe we can have a real discussion on how to combat dangerous hate mongering. That’s the real threat.