«
»

Malta Criminal Code §§ 163-164 provides that,

163. Whosoever by words, gestures, written matter, whether printed or not, or pictures or by some other visible means, publicly vilifies the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion which is the religion of Malta, or gives offence to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion by vilifying those who profess such religion or its ministers, or anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated to, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic worship, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to six months.

164. Whosoever commits any of the acts referred to in the last preceding article against any cult tolerated by law, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to three months.

The Malta Court of Criminal Appeal just interpreted this, and concluded,

The mere fact of dressing up as nun, even if for carnival, but without wearing any religious symbol, cannot reasonably be considered as amounting to public vilification of the Roman Catholic Religion, or of those belonging to such religion, or of its ministers, or of anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated to, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic worship. However, if the wearing of such a habit were accompanied with such circumstances of fact, words or gestures which objectively amount to vilification, then there would be an offence in terms of article 163. Cross reference: The Police v. Rokku Abdilla et Criminal Court 13/01/1962.

So the ban on religion-vilifying speech remains, and the Maltese courts appear to be willing to enforce it. Thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer.

Categories: Uncategorized    

    22 Comments

    1. PLR says:

      That could make for a rather dull Halloween this year, for those who don’t want to dress up as a falcon or a milk shake.

      October 27, 2009, 1:41 pm

    2. TheBadness says:

      So no Valettan Chapter for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, I’m guessing? A shame, really.

      October 27, 2009, 1:44 pm

    3. James N. Gibson says:

      What’s more interesting is the second clause (164). Keep in mind the attitude of Germany towards Scientology. The cult has to be tolerated by law to be protected from verbal attack.

      October 27, 2009, 1:50 pm

    4. Jerome says:

      Ireland, also an EU member state, recently passed a blasphemy law. I can’t find the actual text of the statute, though. It sounds pretty awful.

      October 27, 2009, 2:04 pm

    5. Mark B. says:

      Presumably “cult” is a translation of some term other than the general pejorative the word has become in English (meaning, a religious organization that I really, really dislike). But it’s interesting that vilifying the Roman Catholic church can get you up to six months in the slammer, but vilifying any other tolerated “cult” will get you three months, at most.

      October 27, 2009, 2:04 pm

    6. James N. Gibson says:

      As I put out the previous comment, I just heard over the radio that the French branch of Scientology was just convicted of fraud by a French court. The court did not order the group to disband as requested by the French prosecutor.

      October 27, 2009, 2:04 pm

    8. LarryA says:

      Whosoever commits any of the acts referred to in the last preceding article against any cult tolerated by law, shall…

      So in the U.S. the government has to tolerate my religion, but people don’t. On Malta people have to tolerate my religion but the government doesn’t.

      I feel a lot better protected from discrimination here.

      Pretty good illustration of the difference between the two political philosophies. (The ideal, not necessarily as the U.S. is being run currently.)

      October 27, 2009, 2:10 pm

    9. Martinned says:

      As so often, there seems to be a miscommunication regarding the different nature of judicial review in different countries. Without any examples of people actually being convicted under these articles, it is impossible to say whether “the Maltese courts appear to be willing to enforce it”, although the absence of any actual convictions would point towards an unwillingness.

      You cannot expect the courts to come out and say that they will not obey a certain law. If they did that, they’d be exceeding their constitutional mandate. Instead, they deal with a problematic law by simply interpreting it however narrowly it has to be interpreted in order to acquit the defendant at bar.

      October 27, 2009, 2:17 pm

    10. troll_dc2 says:

      The authors of the legislation apparently do not care much for religions other than the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion; to refer to them as “tolerated by law” suggests that if the authors had their way, the cults in question (whatever they might be) would be fair game for vilification.

      October 27, 2009, 2:20 pm

    11. roguestage says:

      This kind of law makes me glad that the U.S. isn’t a Christian nation.

      /troll

      Seriously, though, this law is staggeringly broad. It prohibits vilifying “those who profess” the Catholic religion as well as the religion itself. Is calling a Catholic a nasty name enough to land you in jail in Malta?

      Also, given that Malta has a state religion, it wouldn’t surprise me if religions are divided into two categories: (1) Catholicism and (2) “cult[s] tolerated by law.” So is calling someone of any religion a nasty name enough to land you in jail? Even assuming that people go to jail for violating this law occasionally, I have difficulty believing that it would be interpreted or enforced so broadly.

      October 27, 2009, 2:21 pm

    12. Mark N. says:

      This French case provides an example from a larger EU country, although admittedly in the more limited context of advertising law, rather than an actual criminal offense.

      October 27, 2009, 2:22 pm

    13. B.D. says:

      This doesn’t really surprise me. Heck, you don’t have to look far in the EU to find people in jail for (stupidly) denying the Holocaust.

      And frankly Malta seems somewhat inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Prospective EU member Turkey has an even more interesting (and disturbing) track record on religious freedom and speech rights.

      October 27, 2009, 2:27 pm

    14. TheBadness says:

      This French case provides an example from a larger EU country, although admittedly in the more limited context of advertising law, rather than an actual criminal offense.

      Although the Cour de Cassation annuled the decision (albeit well after the damage had been done).

      October 27, 2009, 2:44 pm

    15. Martinned says:

      Martinned: As so often, there seems to be a miscommunication regarding the different nature of judicial review in different countries. Without any examples of people actually being convicted under these articles, it is impossible to say whether “the Maltese courts appear to be willing to enforce it”, although the absence of any actual convictions would point towards an unwillingness. You cannot expect the courts to come out and say that they will not obey a certain law. If they did that, they’d be exceeding their constitutional mandate. Instead, they deal with a problematic law by simply interpreting it however narrowly it has to be interpreted in order to acquit the defendant at bar.

      Then again, Malta does seem to have some pretty drastic rules on judicial review (Constitution):

      46. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-articles (6) and (7) of this article, any person who alleges that any of the provisions of articles 33 to 45 (inclusive) of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him, or such other person as the Civil Court, First Hall, in Malta may appoint at the instance of any person who so alleges, may, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter that is lawfully available, apply to the Civil Court, First Hall, for redress.
      (2) The Civil Court, First Hall, shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made by any person in pursuance of sub-article (1) of this article, and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing, or securing the enforcement of, any of the provisions of the said articles 33 to 45 (inclusive) to the protection of which the person concerned is entitled:
      Provided that the Court may, if it considers it desirable so to do, decline to exercise its powers under this sub-article in any case where it is satisfied that adequate means of redress for the contravention alleged are or have been available to the person concerned under any other law.
      (3) If in any proceedings in any court other than the Civil Court, First Hall, or the Constitutional Court any question arises as to the contravention of any of the provisions of the said articles 33 to 45 (inclusive), that court shall refer the question to the Civil Court, First Hall, unless in its opinion the raising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious; and that court shall give its decision on any question referred to it under this sub-article and, subject to the provisions of sub-article (4) of this article, the court in which the question arose shall dispose of the question in accordance with that decision.
      (4) Any party to proceedings brought in the Civil Court, First Hall, in pursuance of this article shall have a right of appeal to the Constitutional Court.
      (5) No appeal shall lie from any determination under this article that any application or the raising of any question is merely frivolous or vexatious.
      (6) Provision may be made by or under an Act of Parliament for conferring upon the Civil Court, First Hall, such powers in addition to those conferred by this article as are necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling the Court more effectively to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by this article.
      (7) Rules of Court making provision with respect to the practice and procedure of the Courts of Malta for the purposes of this article may be made by the person or authority for the time being having power to make rules of court with respect to the practice and procedure of those Courts, and shall be designed to secure that the procedure shall be by application and that the hearing shall be as expeditious as possible.

      116. A right of action for a declaration that any law is invalid on any grounds other than inconsistency with the provisions of articles 33 to 45 of this Constitution shall appertain to all persons without distinction and a person bringing such an action shall not be required to show any personal interest in support of his action.

      October 27, 2009, 3:01 pm

    16. Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Illegal to “Vilify” Religion (in a European Union Member, No Less) -- Topsy.com says:

      [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by paulhsieh, Jay. Jay said: Apparently Malta is also on the blasphemy-law bandwagon (and should be "vilified" for it): http://tinyurl.com/yg597dh [...]

      October 27, 2009, 3:09 pm

    17. Andy Bolen says:

      hopefully doug kmiec will take care of this.

      October 27, 2009, 3:43 pm

    18. Douglas2 says:

      So does “vilify” mean defile? slander? belittle? or merely criticize? (Or should I say criticise, as it is Malta we are speaking of…)
      The Valetta protestant churches were started by non-Maltese expats, and initially had no trouble. When I spent time in Malta in the ’80′s, the “mainline” protestant churches practiced segregation (Maltese people were very politely made to feel that they were not welcome). That way they continued to have no trouble. The Baptists by then were Maltese leadership and mostly Maltese congregation, and although technically they had freedom of religion, they had a lot of problems with administrative roadblocks. (recognition of marriages, the church organization as a legal entity to own or lease property, etc.). Family law there is quite tied into Canon-law, and that creates problems for secular people as well as those of non-established religions.

      My experience of the Baptist and Pentecostal Maltese protestants was that they were very against much official Roman Catholic Church teaching. Yet they temper what they say given the environment. Since religious education is required in the public schools, a lot of the Maltese protestant teaching was “You have learned this, and it is wrong, and here is why, and this is what is right.” It seems there is lots of chance to get in trouble if you are spending all your time talking about how the established church is wrong.

      My own view is that you don’t really have freedom of religion if there is any possibility of state sanction for saying “your religion sucks, and here is why” to someone else.

      October 27, 2009, 5:44 pm

    19. Ridiculous says:

      Religion is silly, made-up nonsense which has caused so much suffering through history. Anyone who believes in any of them is a fool, in my view. The passing of these blasphemy laws shows how modern notions of “tolerance” are actually undercutting the Enlightenment.

      October 27, 2009, 8:48 pm

    20. traveler496 says:

      1) So in Malta, honest rationality concerning irrational mysticism invites imprisonment. Sounds like a good place to avoid.

      2) Suppose there were a book which claimed that the Roman Catholic God (the object of worship of the church of Malta) committed premeditated mass murder of children. Would selling this book expose one to imprisonment? Would preaching from the relevant part of it?

      3) What do you think “…, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic worship,…” is getting at?

      October 28, 2009, 1:22 am

    21. Willy Humbold says:

      See also http://www.FreeEurope.info about freedom inn Europe

      October 28, 2009, 4:13 am

    22. Unblogged Bits for Saturday, 31 October 2009 | ***Dave Does the Blog says:

      [...] Illegal to “Vilify” Religion (in a European Union Member, No Less) – Wow. Remind me not to visit Malta. [...]

      October 31, 2009, 8:02 pm