Religious peccadilloes have no place in our Criminal Code

Disappointing as it apparently is to see the drastic demotion of Malta from 14^th to 58^th in the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index (especially given its opaque system of compiling the score) the comments by RSF director Olivier Basille to the Labour media pins the major reason for the demotion to the prosecution of offenders against the Roman Catholic religion.

The other freedom index employed by Freedom of House, which ranks Malta 22nd, lists Malta's prosecution of offences against the Roman Catholic religion as one of the negatives in its freedom rankings.

Malta is one of the few European states that specifically penalises the 'public vilification' of the (Constitutionally-enshrined) Roman Catholic religion with a maximum term of six months' imprisonment. Only Greece contemplates a higher term - two years' imprisonment - for 'malicious blasphemy'.

The 1933 law is typically of its time, betraying its contempt for other "cults tolerated by law" by reserving 'just' three months' imprisonment for their vilification. Article 338 (bb) of the Criminal Code then punishes blasphemy itself with three months' imprisonment.

But many other EU states have laws against blasphemy, such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and San Marino. 'Religious insult' is a criminal offence in Andorra, Cyprus, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Norway (prosecution only carried out when it is in the public interest to do so), the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine.

Considering recent events, Malta's attempts at complying with the European Convention of Human Rights' standard of freedom of expression have been trounced by the over-zealous prosecution of dubious crimes. Take for example, the arraigning of seven revellers at the Nadur carnival in 2009 for dressing up as priests (illegal if done without permission under Article 338 of the Criminal Code, enacted back in 1937); or the prosecution of authors on obscenity and pornography charges for fictional works. Consider the banning of Stitching by the (former) Board of Film and Stage Classification. The whiff of national self-censorship is evident in the actions of public authorities who are ready to take to court anybody who mocks religion, challenge the social barriers that cushion religious faiths, or even hold up religion up to scrutiny.

It is tempting to hold ourselves up to contempt by making the comparison with Muslim societies where vilification of Islam under Sharia law includes penalties, as in Afghanistan, of execution by hanging. We don't need to go that far: if we are going to imprison people for religious blasphemy, why not throw in a host of other religious infractions (eating meat on Good Friday in a public space...)?

The answer is pretty simple: who does this law protect? It's an outdated creation based the based on the perceived consensus of a nation's chosen (and Constitutionally-set) prejudices. Touchiness seems to be the defining trait of the Maltese, underpinned by the religion-pornography-obscenity legal trifecta.

But the line between religious mockery and hatred should not be so thin. This outdated prosecution for blasphemy is a dangerous weapon that can be used by the powerful and the authorities who control the police force, to hold critics up to public contempt. Blasphemy laws have nothing to do with religious freedom. Blasphemy laws are used to curtail freedom of expression and thought. If we had to apply the Maltese standard of blasphemous offence to racism, then we must also imprison people for saying racist jokes.

The question we must ask ourselves is which laws best protect us and other vulnerable groups in society.

The recent amendments to the criminal code, aggravating penalties for hate crimes, religious included, reflect a public need to penalise statements that call for persons to be subjected to hatred, discrimination or violence on grounds of their religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and nationality, or political opinion.

These are acts that directly penalise, disadvantage, injure or even murder human beings on the grounds of who they are and believe in. In upholding this standard, we uphold the freedom of human beings in their pursuit of happiness and self-determination.

Like the criminal prosecution for defamation, blasphemous offences are outlandish notions that burden a society and its police force with already graver crimes to prosecute. Now that our hate crimes are in the 21^st century, let's get rid of the 20^th century peccadilloes.