EU Ombudsman will not investigate religious discrimination in Maltese law
A request by an American Hindu group was rejected by the European Ombudsman because he is “not entitled” to decide whether Malta’s law on religious vilification is discriminatory or not.
The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, was asked to investigate a complaint lodged from the USA on the way Maltese law discriminates between the Catholic and other religions when it comes to their vilification.
Specifically, the Maltese criminal code makes one liable to imprisonment of up to six months for publicly vilifying the Catholic religion, while committing such an act against “any cult tolerated by law” makes one liable to imprisonment only up to three months.
The complaint was lodged by the the Bhavna Shinde of Forum for Hindu Awakening is taking up the fight of two lone crusaders – the Hindu leader Rajan Zed and Rabbi Jonathan B. Freirich.
Ombudsman P. Nikiforos Diamandouros explained that the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and the Statute of the European Ombudsman set certain conditions as to the opening of an enquiry by the Ombudsman.
“One of these conditions is that the Ombudsman shall help to uncover maladministration in the activities of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies such as the European Parliament and the European Commission. No action by any other authority or person may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman.
“After a careful examination of your complaint, it appears that this condition is not met, because your complaint is not related to an act of a Union institution, body, office or agency, but it is against a provision in the Maltese Criminal Code.”
Shinde’s communiqué asked the Ombudsman to investigate the law – enacted back in 1933 – to ensure that Malta treats all religions and denominations equally in front of the law. The use of the word “cults” indeed reveals some contempt shown to other religions, apart from making blasphemy against Jews, Muslims, Protestants, adherents of the Bahá’í faith or Quakers less serious than against Catholics.
Article 338 (bb) states that it will be an offence to, “even though in a state of intoxication” publicly utter “any obscene or indecent words, or makes obscene acts or gestures, or in any other manner not otherwise provided for in this Code, offend against public morality, propriety or decency”.
In respect of this contravention, where the act consists in uttering blasphemous words or expressions, the maximum punishment may be imprisonment for a term of three months.
Alfred Galea •
http://www.jocalling.com/2008/09/rajan-zed-on-a-promotional-spree/
John Mifsud •
'The use of the word “cults” indeed reveals some contempt shown to other religions'
Whoever wrote this is very much misinformed. The original law was enacted in Italian, which was an official language, and the language of the Law Courts at the time. The word for the practice of any organised religion is 'culto' in Italian.
Also, 'cult' in standard English has none of the negative connotations it has in US English, where the word is equivalent to our term 'sect'.
Another thing: how would you refer to the Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu religions (all present in Malta in 1933)? To refer to them as 'churches' or denominations' would be inaccurate and and quite possibly exclude them from the scope of the law, since these terms refer only to Christians.
I find it strange that these Las Vegas-based gentlemen would be taking so much trouble about a country which most of their co-nationals have never heard about, when our long-established Jewish and Hindu communities never had any problem with this law.
