The Malta Police have issued a video with a number of tips for tourists. This is a commendable effort aimed at informing tourists of their rights and obligations while holidaying on the island of milk and honey. I’m assuming that this is a serious effort and not some kind of parody and once again – bar the insistence on pronouncing “Malta” in Maltese while speaking in English – I will repeat that it is a commendable effort of the kind that should be encouraged.
Yes, tourists should be reminded that we drive on the left, that jumping off cliffs or high places can be dangerous (and once you are at it why not warn divers about the perils of rough seas too?). There is no doubt that the ins and outs of alcohol and tobacco policies are best explained beforehand and there is no harm in asking tourists to be considerate to the locals throughout their stay (will somebody warn them about the risk of being told to “Go back to their country?”).
The promo does verge on the comical on a number of occasions though. Forget the fake “student with head wound” in the water bit which might serve as a dire warning for all those planning to jump from Cominotto. I am more interested in the obsession with toplessness and “walking without a shirt” in public places. The Superintendent was rather eager to stress that the police would not tolerate skinny dipping, topless bathing or walking around without a shirt. Don’t offend the locals.
You see what is interesting is that under our criminal code, contravention 338(q) (“in the harbours, on the seashore or in any other public place, exposes himself naked or is indecently dressed”) is just one of a series of quirky contraventions affecting public order. It is of the same importance as the contravention committed by someone who “without permission cuts any grass in or about any fortification” (338 (a)). There’s also a contravention that is committed whenever someone “refuses to receive at the established value, any money lawfully current” (338 (k)) or one that is committed whenever someone “taking advantage of the credulity of others, for the purpose of gain, pretends to be a diviner, fortune-teller or an interpreter of dreams;” (338 (l)).
You think THAT is weird? How about 338 (s) that deems anyone who “drives animals (whether of burden or riding animals) over a drawbridge, with or without a vehicle, otherwise than at an amble” to be guilty of a contravention? My favourite remains 338 (w) that deems anyone who “leads an idle and vagrant life” guilty of a contravention. Don’t miss 338 (cc) which finds anyone who “runs violently in any street or open space, with the risk of running into and injuring other persons;” guilty of a contravention.
I could go on. But back to out “indecently dressed” contravention. It was last amended in 1933 though I am hoping that the question of “decency” to be applied will use a modern day standard. Weirdly it only refers to “exposes himself” naked – thus excluding all instances of female nudity should you be of the literal minded persuasion. Why is it though that this particular contravention is given so much importance? In 2014 is a bit of naughty skinny dipping by a bunch of students in a beach at night really such a threat to public peace? Are we really to bother our magistrates and searjeants-at-arms with the problems of topless sunbathing or beer-bellies being overly-exposed?
The Police video also warns tourists about disturbing locals during their siesta. Sadly for the PC there seems to be a bit of license being taken there since 338 (m) does not cover the afternoon. It’s only a contravention if he/she “at night time, disturbs the repose of the inhabitants by rowdiness or bawling, or in any other manner;”. Bawling eh.
In the end, kudos to the Malta Police for the effort in the information campaign but please can we drop this obsession with toplessness and nudity? So much fuss for so little. Really.
