[WATCH] Lara Dimitrijevic: ‘Culture of misogyny is alive and well in Maltese society’

Malta’s misogynist culture has persisted throughout the years, despite progress and positive developments with regards to legislation, lawyer and activist Lara Dimitrijevic has warned.  

Speaking to MaltaToday around week after Malta’s latest femicide victim was murdered by her ex-partner, Dimitrijevic praised Malta’s progress with regards to legislation, such as Malta’s ratification of the Istanbul Convention. Despite this, the feminist activist made a distinction between legislation and enforcement, noting that legislation alone is not effective.   

When asked specifically about the murder of Nicolette Ghirxi, Dimitrijevic took issue with the fact that many who were discussing the details of the case, made a distinction between harassment and domestic violence, explaining that harassment falls under domestic violence in the eyes of the law.   

Dimitrijevic told me that if there is one lesson to be learned from Ghirxi’s murder, it’s that when a former or current partner starts to show threatening behaviour, the risk of escalation and physical violence is much higher.  

She did not stutter when asked if we’re living in a society where violence against women is acceptable, as she noted that misogyny is alive and well in Maltese culture. Dimitrijevic says one only needs to look at social media comments on news articles regarding rape, to see the normalisation of certain views against women.  

The following is an excerpt from the interview.    

The full interview can also be followed on Facebook and Spotify.  

In previous comments to MaltaToday, you made a distinction between legislation and enforcement. What has the latest femicide case taught us about Malta’s laws and enforcement in this field?  

From the comments I read about this case it seems as though there is a distinction between harassment and domestic violence. Let me go back to the law; in this context, it was crystal clear that it was a case of domestic violence. The definition of domestic violence also incorporates harassment.   

In this case threatening emails were sent and it was in the context of two people who were in a relationship. That in itself classifies the case as domestic violence, and that’s why the law is important because it already specifies this scenario.    

I can’t speak in detail about the case because everything I know came from the media, but I think we learned that when you have two people who have ended a relationship and one of them starts harassing the other, the danger is heightened. When one of the former partners doesn’t accept that the relationship is over and is sending threatening messages, then I know that the danger has escalated drastically, and I think that’s something we need to learn if we haven’t already.  

So that’s the first line that’s crossed, when someone doesn’t accept…  

Yes, research and experience show us that it is when a relationship ends and one person doesn’t accept this, and starts to harass the other in any way, even by using social media. In this case it was email, I’ve had cases where the aggressor is blocked but he keeps sending messages on Revolut. You can imagine the extremes he is willing to go to keep persecuting the other person. We know that that’s an indicator that shows what the situation can escalate and can lead to, as was the case here: to femicide.   

Something that came up with regard to this case was the authorities’ offer to conduct a risk assessment but the victim didn’t give her consent to this. Obviously, you can’t blame the victim, but when she chose not to sit down for the risk assessment, do you think the authorities made the right call to respect her wish or was there more to be done?   

Let me go back to the current law. After implementing the Istanbul Convention, there is a need for a risk assessment. The authorities, you and I, we all do risk assessment. If I’m crossing the road, I assess the risk and see if a car is coming my way. A professional who works in this field is always carrying out this risk assessment.   

I don’t think it should only revolve around the fact that the law states Aġenzija Appoġġ is responsible for the risk assessment and the process stops there. We know, through research and experiences, that one doesn’t always recognise the danger they are in. There could be other factors such as embarrassment. It’s already a big step to file a report, so talking to another authority and sitting down for a risk assessment is another one.   

There are those who are not comfortable because they know Aġenzija Appoġġ is doing this kind of risk assessment. It could be any other agency not just Appoġġ. There are many other factors and so we cannot keep depending only on the risk assessment provided by law.    

Risk management should be done at all stages. One should look at the victim’s demeanour when filing their report, whether they feal fear or anger for example. All of these indicate the risk a person is in…   

One can find cases of people being hesitant in seeking justice against their aggressor, even if the case reaches court. For instance, the victim can forgive the aggressor. Where exactly can one draw the line? How much importance can you give to the victim’s thoughts in these cases?   

The victim should always be heard, so it’s important to give them importance. Let’s say the victim has already testified in court, but she then says she doesn’t wish to continue. This doesn’t mean that the court should depend on the victim’s wish, because the law gives the court the facility to keep on pursuing the case.    

I like to use the example of homicide cases. When there’s a homicide, no one expects the victim to testify. The investigation is done, the evidence is collected, and it’s then up to the judiciary to see how they’re going to make the judgement according to the evidence. We should work in the same way in these cases.   

It shouldn’t revolve on the victim’s wish. If the investigation is done properly, the court has the responsibility to keep hearing the case.    

Let’s zoom out a bit. Earlier you spoke about culture. Do you think Malta has a culture where violence against women is seen as acceptable or justified in certain cases?   

Yes. Misogyny is something that is very real and alive in our culture. Simply read the comments on social media. If a female politician speaks, what are the comments? If a male politician speaks, even if they are negative, comments are very different to those under articles featuring women politicians. When I speak publicly, the comments tend to revolve around me being a woman, a feminist or something else.  

That to me indicates something about our society, but let’s go deeper than that. One can simply read the comments under an article about rape. Instead of saying, “Look at what this poor woman went through,” the comments are always, “Who knows what she did,” or “It is her fault she went out drinking.”  

I see it in young people too where it’s almost becoming something, not only tolerated but normalised. Now everyone wants to speak in that manner and make those comments. This worries me greatly. These are problems that we are not addressing and we are not giving them the necessary importance.   

The problem is yours and mine as well, not only the authorities’. It is a societal problem. When we see these comments, we are staying silent, and sometimes we go along with them. We like to say we have zero tolerance to violence, but we should also have zero tolerance to bystanders, or those who participate in this behaviour.