Council of Europe calls for prosecution of online racist comments

A report by the Council of Europe's Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has highlighted, inter alia, the lack of any co-ordinated attempt by the Maltese authorities to monitor online discussions for cases of incitement to hatred and violence, and recommends an "an independent body" empowered to impose sanctions in cases where racist language is used.

No actual examples were provided in the report published Monday, which was limited to the pre-December 2012 scenario. However, the CoE report alludes to anonymous interlocutors who allege that "most racist comments made online, particularly comments to news articles, go unpunished".

"ECRI notes that... there have been very few investigations opened for breach of the criminal law provisions in force against racism... Article 82A [which stipulates prison sentences for incitement to racial hatred] has been applied only once in 2008 in the context of a judgment against Norman Lowell, head of a political party called Imperium Europe [sic]".

The report also highlights the case of a Facebook user who was convicted in 2011 for breach of Article 6 of the Press Act, for having used racist expressions online. Two other reports are currently being investigated by the police.

For all this, ECRI criticises the fact that "there is no authority which monitors comments on newspaper websites made in reaction to their articles".

As a result, "it is not infrequent that comments to articles reporting on migrants, asylum seekers and refugees express racist views or use racist discourse".

The CoE report therefore recommends the adoption of legislation to "suppress public financing for those parties whose members are responsible for racist acts", and to set up new structures (or amend existing ones, such as the Broadcasting Authority) in order to clamp down on racist discourse in the media.

Also issued as an appendix to the report was an exhaustive, point-for-point reply by the Maltese government. In response to the above calls for legislative amendments, government issued a stark, one-liner reply to point out that "the House of Representatives determines its programmes and procedure without interference from outside bodies".

Elsewhere in its response to the CoE report - issued on March 20, 2013, three weeks after the election - the Malta government complained that many of the individual points had been based on intelligence acquired from 'anonymous sources'. Among the issues highlighted by the report are claimed incidents of racially motivated violence, exploitation of vulnerable persons by employers, and alleged cases of mistreatment associated with detention.

The findings at a glance

Exploitation: The CoE report confirms earlier findings that exploitation of foreign workers remains rife. Citing a study published by the General Workers' Union, the report notes that "many of these workers [i.e., refugees, persons granted humanitarian protection and immigrants] continue to be employed in the informal economy and are exploited by their employers, particularly in the construction sector.

The report cites allegations that individual migrant workers were paid only 25c for a full day's work, when they had been promised €25. In many cases, such workers are routinely denied access to the same conditions enjoyed by regular employees, and basic health and safety standards are often disregarded.

Government's reply was to point towards subsidiary legislation 420.07, which contains safeguards against exploitation. "It is therefore considered that this recommendation is already being implemented".

Racially-motivated violence: The report reiterates earlier findings that 29% of respondents to a survey (all immigrants from Africa) claimed that they had been victims of racially motivated assault. An estimated 50% or more of such cases are not reported to the police.

The response by government was to question the source of such complaints: the ECRI report cites the 2009 EU-MIDI report, which relies on dubious methodology, and on anonymous sources.

Discrimination in conferment of citizenship: ECRI pointed out that Malta's Citizenship Act leaves a large margin of discretion in decisions on naturalisation, and also there is no right to appeal.

"Under Article 10 of the Citizenship Act, a person seeking naturalisation 'may' be granted citizenship if the authorities are satisfied that she or he, amongst other requirements, is of a good character and would be a suitable citizen of Malta."

ECRI noted that these two criteria leave a very wide scope of appreciation to the authorities and are not based on objective and measurable criteria.

On its part government 'took note' of these observations. 

No discussion: ECRI also decried the fact that Malta has so far stopped short of discussing racism in Parliament, although the report acknowledges that discussion has taken place in other fora. Moreover, ECRI argues that a national action plan against racism and xenophobia was developed, but never been adopted or published by the authorities.

Government however rebuts such criticism: "In their interventions relating to migration and asylum, government officials already raise awareness in relation to the human rights dimension. Moreover, information is provided on the circumstances leading to the arrival of asylum seekers in Malta and other countries."