Facebook's Fine

IRIS 2008-6:14/19
Malta
Judgment on Incitement to Racial Hatred
Kevin Aquilina
Malta Broadcasting Authority

Via a judgment delivered by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature on 27 March 2008, Mr. Norman Lowell was found guilty of incitement to racial hatred. Less than three weeks before the delivery of this judgment, the Broadcasting Authority had withheld the broadcast of a five minute talk on the public service broadcaster, Television Malta, by Mr. Norman Lowell, who stood as an independent candidate for the general elections held in Malta on Saturday 8 March 2008. Mr. Lowell’s broadcast was prohibited from being aired due to the fact that it was considered by the broadcasting regulator to constitute incitement to racial hatred and was consequently in breach of the Criminal Code, the Broadcasting Act and the Broadcasting Authority’s Requirements as to Standards and Practice on the Promotion of Racial Equality, 2007.

The charges levelled by the Police before the Court of Magistrates (Malta) against Mr. Lowell were that, in two different places in Malta and in an article he had written, he used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or otherwise conducted himself in a manner intended to stir up racial hatred or from which racial hatred was likely, having regard to all the circumstances, to be stirred up. He was further accused of having used defamatory, insulting or disparaging words, acts or gestures in contempt of the person of the President of Malta. The accused was given a two year prison sentence suspended for four years and was fined EUR 500, after he was found guilty on all the above charges. Mr. Lowell declared that he would be appealing the judgment before the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The Court of Magistrates noted that the accused had used insulting words against third parties holding different religious, political and other beliefs and opinions. The Court referred to the guidelines as to the interpretation of the words ‘racial discrimination’ offered by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which defines the term as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.

In the light of the above definitions, the Court examined the accused’s speeches and writings. It observed that the accused considered those persons who held a religious belief different from his to be on a par with terrorists, that the British were afraid to be treated at public hospitals, because the doctors and nurses working there were Muslims and that Muslims were responsible for the arson of the underground system in London. The accused further stated that there was no reason why Muslims should not infect patients in hospital by placing poison in their drip, contaminating the food in the hospital and making patients sleep through the administration of anesthetic. In other words, the accused stated that patients in London depended on the Muslims’ pity and he emphasised that their religion – Islam – taught them to hate their enemies.

The Court noted that the accused stated that Malta was moving without any direction and without a leader and that crimes were committed by irregular immigrants in Malta. He stated that African children were infected by AIDS and that, as a result, even Maltese children would be infected by this disease. The accused held that Malta should be cleansed of irregular migrants and that, if no action were taken, Malta would end up being conquered by “Negros”. The accused referred to the employment in Malta of Africans, who he alleged were taking the jobs of the Maltese, and ridiculed the President of Malta by referring to him, inter alia , as “the President of the Africans”. The accused also ridiculed the adoption of children from Africa. Mr. Lowell even referred to Muslims as “rodents”. He advocated famine in those countries inhabited by non-white people and that war should be employed as a means of eliminating weak persons of his own race. War was envisaged by the accused as a means of cleaning inferior races. Space should be reserved for the white race, which was, in his view, the pioneering race.

The Court heavily condemned these opinions. It concluded that they amounted to incitement to racial hatred, which is a serious crime under the Maltese Criminal Code. The Court further held that it is obliged by law to protect all races in Malta, without distinction; more so those races which are in a minority, as the court has to protect every person in Malta, irrespective of colour, race or religion.

No prob Claire… actually thanks. I think the following phrase is all about what I am asking:

“in a manner intended to stir up racial hatred or from which racial hatred was likely, having regard to all the circumstances, to be stirred up”

The intention or the likelihood might be clear in the case of Norman but not in the case of Farrugia.

Nice font on this website by the way… very civilised.

Thank you to Claire and Raphael for the lively discussion (and Fausto for the interjections). I hate intervening with bold appendices at the end of a comment – it somehow puts me at an unfair advantage so here are a few points at the end from the j’accuse side:

1. Karl Farrugia
The case merits discussion within the legal context first. The anlaysis of the offence perforce requires an appreciation of what we would call context. Many volumes have been written as to what constitutes a “reasonable man in the street” and how that person processes certain information (point made by Justin Fenech at the beginning). I’d like to believe that even fantasising about riddling the papal appendages with bulletholes is still only just that – fantasising. There is also the practical element – if we have to be pedantic about what Karl wishes then we have to imagine that someone has the power and wherewithal to (a) kidnap Benji 16 and (b) do so with the express intent to simply shoot him through palms and feet and then release him. Forget Kill Bill… it’s Shoot Benji. Rather far fetched in any set of circumstances.

Which leaves us with the idea of fomenting hatred of the papal figure. Funny but was this not a “No to the Pope in Malta” group on facebook? I wouldn’t exactly expect the Legion of Mary and other footsoldiers of roman catholicity to be perusing the comment board in that particular corner of the net universe. I still believe that the case against Karl is weak. Very weak. I do not even feel the need to qualify that with “but I still do not agree with what he said” – because it is obvious. Blatantly so.

2. Mario Grech vs Humanists

Now this one is a tougher bone to crack. I can bring myself to agree with Raphael on the premiss that Grech’s statements can be perceived as offensive and more – an incitement to action AGAINST a particular group of individuals. There is no physical violence and Grech has not yet conjured up the ghost of Torquemada as Fausto points out in his usual droll manner. That does not mean however that there is not a soupçon of double-standards in the whole business. Replace “facebook group” with “congregation” and “bullets through palms” with “a cure for the disease that is liberalism” and you begin to worry. Should society be concerned with gagging Mario and Karl or should there be fora like this one openly challenging the very issues that are brought to light?

Funnily enough Lou is stuttering a similar argument with regard to his bringing the Lowell circus into the limelight once again. Our criticism in that direction remains the same: the idea of the program was merely sensation – no intention to criticise. Otherwise both in the case of Karl and that of Mario (and Lowell) we would prefer the line that engages rather than one that punishes and gags.