[WATCH] ‘Equal opportunities piss-taking’ | Matt Bonanno

Matt,once again, you seem to have landed yourself in hot water over something you’ve written on the Internet…

That seems to be the case, yes.

Not for the first time; but this is the first time you’re actually being taken to court, isn’t it?

Correct.

And the specific charges concern ‘misuse of electronic equipment’; and ‘declaring your intention to commit a crime online’ (adding up to a possible penalty of E50,000). That’s pretty serious, by any standard. First of all: why you do you think the police are taking this case so seriously, when they have ignored so many other similar complaints in the past? Do you think it’s because you’re a ‘soft target’?

I can’t obviously speculate about the actual intentions of the police; I’m not privy to the way they work. But in terms of whether I’m a soft target: possibly yes, because I’m just one person. I’m an individual; I don’t have a whole media organisation, with a team of lawyers, behind me; I’m just someone who writes funny stuff on the Internet…

Do you think it might also have something to do with the identity of the person pressing the charges? The report was filed by Gordon Manche, of the River of Love foundation (and let’s face it: both he, and his organisation, have followers; and wield a little clout....)

Again, I don’t know what goes on behind closed doors; and Mr Manche, like any other citizen, has every right to feel aggrieved. Whether going to the police was the right course of action for him, or not, is naturally debatable… but still: here we are…

OK, let’s go back to how it all started. Your original comment – which led to the exchange where you suggested ‘carpet-bombing Bugibba’ – was that ‘River of Love should be treated exactly like ISIS’. Unlike the comment for which you are being charged, that could conceivably be taken seriously. Were you, in fact, being serious there? Do you feel that religious organisations such as River of Love, are dangerous enough to be compared to a terrorist organisation?

I think the context of that post is important, as well. It was a few days after the murder of Paulina Dembska [Note: the suspect, Abner Aquilina, had attended a River of Love meeting shortly before the murder]. As for what I meant with the comment: yes, my intention was to state that this group should be seen as ‘dangerous’.

Obviously, there was a bit of hyperbole, there. I don’t mean to suggest that they are literally go around, ‘committing terrorist acts’; but they are nonetheless problematic. And I’m not the first person to have noted the problematic nature, of some of the things they do. So I think it’s my right to have that opinion.

At the same time, it invites us to consider the precise demarcation line between ‘satire’ and ‘regular commentary’. You have a satirical website – Bis-Serjeta.com – yet the comment itself was not actually on that site: it was something you said, in your personal capacity, in an online chat..

Yes, it was on my personal profile. One thing I will say, however, is that you don’t need to have a satirical website, to make a satirical comment.  With that comment, I was using all the tools of satire – irony and hyperbole – to make a point; and to make a joke, really. Because at the end of the day, that’s what is was: a joke…

As jokes go, however, this one didn’t go down too well. Not, perhaps, because some people took it as an intention to literally ‘bomb Bugibba’… but because the comment itself could (according to some) be interpreted as ‘hate speech’. Do you see that as a possibility? Do you feel – like many other people do – that you may actually have ‘crossed a line’, there?

No. And as for the difference between satire, and hate speech: I would say that one of the more common general definitions, is that satire should ‘punch upwards’: it should speak truth to power; and hold power to account. One definition I read recently, that I really liked, was that satire ‘comforts the afflicted, and afflicts the comfortable’.       

Hate speech, on the other hand… sometimes, the definition can a bit hazy; but I think that, generally, hate speech has to be directed towards people who are vulnerable; people with protected characteristics: such as sexuality, race, and so on…

Couldn’t the same be said for religious organisations, though? Especially fringe ones, like River of Love? How would you respond to their own (presumed) argument that… “Hey! We’re actually the ‘vulnerable ones’, here?”

Well… if you look at all the Bis-Serjetà articles I’ve written about the Catholic Church, for instance – obviously, this one was in my personal capacity; so it’s slightly different – but if you count the number of articles about the Catholic Church, as opposed to River of Love…  I think you’ll find the proportion is skewed heavily towards the Church.

Because if something is an ‘organised religion’ – and it’s the right there, in the name: an ‘organised’ religion. These are institutions with sway, and influence; and with a certain amount of financial backing as well. So I think the difference is that: if I were to go after one individual from River Of Love, that would be problematic. But I think that commenting about them, as an institution, is acceptable: given also their public profile. After all, this isn’t some small, little church in a garage somewhere; this is a well-known organisation…

Interesting, that you mentioned ‘going after one individual’; because actually, you ‘went after’ around 23, 112 people – in other words, the entire population of Bugibba. There was another dimension to your comment, wasn’t there? It wasn’t targeted only at River of Love, but also – correct me if I’m wrong – at the ‘uglification’ of Malta’s urban environment (of which Bugibba is a frequently-cited example)…

[Laughing] If anything, I think that – if there’s a party that should feel ‘aggrieved’ – it’s the people of Bugibba, really…

Honestly, though: the whole thing is so silly that, even when I was being questioned by the police, it was all just so surreal…

Out of curiosity: how did the police approach the interrogation, anyway? Did they give you the impression they were taking the matter dead seriously?

Let me put it this way: I don’t think they were particularly ‘happy’ to be in that situation…

Are you implying they may have been acting on orders?

Oh, I can’t answer that… it’s more like just an impression I got. They’re police, after all. They’ve got more important work to be doing… and I think they recognise that, too.

Coming back to the ‘freedom of speech’ implications: former Education Minister Evarist Bartolo noted that “democratic societies are measured by the extent to which they tolerate criticism and prickly comments”. This resonates with a recurring theme on Bis-Serjetà: you likewise often seem to argue that Malta’s democracy is not ‘ready’, for a certain type of satire. Am I right in saying that?

Well... I think one tell-tale indication of that, is that I’m the only one who does what I do, really. Obviously, there are other vehicles for satire in the country – generally in theatre, and on broadcasting media – and sometimes, I think they don’t go as ‘hard’ [at their targets] as I do, a lot of the time…

But in terms of the problems of Maltese society, in relation to this: I would say that, possibly, we tend to take ourselves too seriously, as a society; and certain people have an inflated sense of their own importance.

I think another issue that we have in Malta, is that the concept of ‘irony’ is still not fully understood. The idea of ‘saying something you don’t mean’… or which actually means the opposite of what you’re saying… is not something that everybody gets.

Obviously, I don’t want to generalise: Bis-Serjetà has a healthy following, after all. I have over 35,000 followers on Facebook; which is not exactly a ‘small’ audience. But it is, at the end of the day, a ‘niche’ audience.  It certainly doesn’t represent how the majority of the Maltese public thinks...

You seem to be suggesting that many Maltese people just don’t ‘get’ irony. Let me turn that around a little, though. Let’s say that they DO understand irony perfectly well; but some people just don’t like it, when you point your satirical fingers at things they themselves hold dear. Politics is a good example of this…

Yes, it is.

… so is that part of what you meant by: ‘I’m the only one who does what I do?’ The fact that you seem to have no hesitation whatsoever, in ‘hitting out at all sides, equally?’

I myself like to think of it as, ‘equal opportunities piss-taking’. But I’ve been asked this question a lot – specifically, with regard to partisan politics – and I think that: number one, this is my website… and I don’t have any obligation to be ‘neutral’, or ‘unbiased’, or anything like that. And secondly: at the end of the day, the government and opposition don’t have the same executive power. It is the government of the day that takes decisions, and passes laws, and what have you… so if, in a 100 years’ time – at the rate we’re going – the Nationalists were to eventually come back into power… and, for instance, I would stop making fun of the government, from that point on - then obviously it would be a fair criticism, to call me ‘biased’.

In fact, to be honest: when, in 2013, the Labour Party came into power, after around 25 years of Nationalist governments… it was a bit difficult for me to adjust, initially.  I had started Bis-Serjetà in 2011: so I had a whole repertoire of jokes about certain Nationalist ministers, and other PN personalities, to fall back on…

But then, 2013 comes along: and suddenly, we had this totally new group of people instead. So it was like starting all over again, with a blank slate. All the tropes, and stereotypes, I had been used to: I didn’t have them anymore. I had to rebuild everything from scratch..

Well, you’ve been given quite a lot to build on, since 2013. So out of curiosity: how do you compare the Nationalist and Labour eras, when it comes to satire? How much more (or less) is there to take the piss out of, between the two parties?

It’s a bit difficult to say, actually: I only caught the last two years of the PN era. So I’ll have to think about that, a little.

One thing I can certainly say, though, is that – under the PN – one of the things that brought Bis-Serjetà into existence, in the first place, was the divorce referendum. That gave me a really good ‘launching pad’, as it were: because that was happening, at the time as I was starting up.

In terms of how ‘different’ those eras were, however: one thing that stands out – from my perspective – was that under the PN, there were no ministers who actually ‘outed’ me. Under Labour, on the other hand… there was at least one, who did that [Aaron Farrugia, in 2021]

There is an irony in that, though. The Labour Party often prides itself on championing ‘free speech’… yet satirists like yourself are still being hauled off to court, under a Labour government. Do you feel that – despite all the ‘progressive’ changes, since 2013 – there are still just as many restrictions (if not even more) regarding what you can, and cannot, say in public?

I don’t know about that. Speaking globally - and locally as well – I don’t think there’s ever been a time, when you could say as much as you can say now.

But obviously: context is key. You have to write stuff, within context. Even on Bis-Serjetà, I measure my words… and sometimes, I’ll come up with a headline; and I’ll think, ‘Ooh, this might be a bit too much’. Then I’ll share it with a couple of friends – whom I think of as good ‘barometers’: because they know my style of comedy; they do the same kind of comedy themselves, etc – and ask them… ‘too much?’

And yet, despite all those ‘precautions’: here you are, facing serious criminal charges over a presumed threat to ‘carpet-bomb Bugibba’. This brings us back to an issue you mentioned at the beginning: the mismatch of resources. You are, as you said, a single individual, with limited financial means: and now, you have to fight this case in court. How hopeful are you of winning, all things considered?

Well; first of all I’d like to remind people that, if anyone wants to chip in with a donation to help cover my legal costs: they can do so at ‘bis-serjeta.com/donate’. Having said that: I can’t be anything other than ‘confident’, to be honest… because as far as I’m concerned, the hyperbole, and exaggeration, of that comment was pretty clear, for all to see. So to me: it would be shocking indeed, if this were to ‘go the other way’…

One last question: will this experience change the way you write, in future?

Probably not. I certainly have no intention of changing the way ‘Bis-Serjetà operates; but as for whether I myself will re-examine the way I communicate on the Internet… that’s something I could consider.

But I probably won’t, because: I’m incorrigible, really…