I was shaken out of my complacency the other day and I have the culture minister to thank for it. When the European Broadcasting Union rejected the word kant in Miriana Conte’s Eurovision entry, I’d assumed it was a simple case of the EBU drawing the line at an amusing ruse to get past the censors. But Owen Bonnici tells us there are grave issues at stake.

In my defence, I was misled by recent history. It is not the first time that Eurovision participants tried to get something past the organisers and the EBU put its foot down. Minor edits, for suggestive language, have been requested as recently as 2022 (Latvia) and 2024 (Germany).

In 2009, Georgia’s entry was called We Don’t Wanna Put In. Following the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, the song’s title and lyrics were interpreted as a thinly veiled jab at Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. The EBU deemed it too political and requested changes.

Georgia refused and withdrew from the contest. Usually, however, countries have complied without fuss.

In 2021, Italy’s Måneskin had to tweak Zitti e Buoni to remove two vulgar Italian terms to comply with EBU standards. Now, these are words in common use in Italy, even in the traditional media. But no Italian minister decided to die fighting either for free speech or for the dignity of Dante’s language.

Instead, the Italians gave us all a lesson in the art of arrangiarsi. First, the offending words were removed. Then, upon winning the contest and being asked to perform their victory reprise, Måneskin sang the uncensored version.

In all this, everyone has always assumed the common-sense position. Free speech in the public square does not preclude the EBU having standards for its platform.

Since 1958, for example, the EBU has limited songs to three minutes. In doing so, it is not limiting the freedom of a singer who has five minutes of heartfelt passion to pour out on stage.

Likewise, although the Eurovision stage performances suggest it is a spectacle by sybarites for the fleshpots of Europe, it is an event organised by lawyers, accountants, engineers and every manner of specialist, wary of political and financial backlash from any angle. That’s why language is patrolled so firmly.

This is the unchallenged, common-sense position. However, Bonnici, who, so far, never objected to EBU censorship, will have none of this. He is calling the demand to replace the word kant a violation of artistic freedom of speech.

To be clear, Bonnici is not alone. Others, including politicians from all sides, have pitched in. Some add this censorship discriminates against the Maltese language. But, being minister, Bonnici’s word is the weightiest of all.

I doubt it will impress the EBU or attract support from other governments. Bonnici is not making a serious argument. In fact, to debate it might give the impression of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

It is outrageous that the arts minister, of all people, is arguing for a position that, in practice, undermines artistic freedom- Ranier Fsadni

But showing what’s wrong with the argument is important. Bonnici is unlikely to get anywhere with the EBU. But the same argument, disguised as principle, might be used in Malta – to the disadvantage of our freedoms. We shouldn’t let him get away with it.

Fortunately, the argument doesn’t take long to dismiss. First, artistic expression doesn’t have privileges that ordinary speech does not. And that’s a good thing.

If artists can say things that the rest of us can’t, the result will be horrendous. The police and politicians will be in charge of deciding whether, say, a piece of written invective constitutes “art”, to see if it’s protected.

The police should never be in charge of deciding if something is art or not, not least because art has a way of challenging its own definitions. It is outrageous that the arts minister, of all people, is arguing for a position that, in practice, undermines artistic freedom.

As for the dignity of the Maltese language, everyone knows the game being played with Serving Kant. It is a stratagem to attract the vote of some of the core aficionados of Eurovision, the queer and trans fandoms.

Everyone has read it that way. It’s obvious that the Maltese word is a figleaf. The lyrics hardly make sense if you try to read the Maltese meaning into them.

To say the honour of the Maltese language is represented by borderline nonsense is to belittle the language. So is saying that Maltese is being represented when the song uses only a single word. Then again, it’s perhaps to be expected when the destruction of our natural environment is said to be compensated by the planting of a few trees.

Everything I’ve just said has to do with our public square and freedoms. It has nothing to do with Conte’s song in itself. On the contrary, I am the first one rooting that, against all expectations, the EBU reverses its decision and rules kant as admissible.

You see, I have my own song already lined up. If Serving Kant makes it through with its purity intact, I shall enter the lists next year.

The plan is to be accompanied on stage by Joseph Chetcuti, on violin, and Lou Bondí on electric guitar, the three of us stripped down to flared black leather trousers, held up with shiny bicycle chains as braces, while I belt out my barnstorming tribute to the culinary genius of Gordon Ramsay, Serving Kok.

I’m convinced we can finally unify the country in wanting to make that happen – although, since the song really will be about Ramsay, I can offer the minister no assurances about the dignity of the language.