Was Fr Andrew Borg a victim of hate speech when Emma Portelli Bonnici strongly implied he’d burn her as a witch if he could? Of course not. She was simply slapping him down after he called her “Hitler, a satanist, a murderer, a butcher and a criminal”. But if she could call him a wannabe witch-burner, why can’t he call her a satanist?
Yes, he’s demonising her but she replied in kind. In 21st-century society, it’s the witch-burners who are seen as a vicious threat, not the devil worshippers.
In the media, Fr Borg has been reported to have engaged in hate speech as though that’s an indisputable fact that can be read off what he wrote. But that’s not what various human rights authorities say, from the UN to the US Supreme Court to the European Court of Human Rights.
Let me be clear. I don’t want to defend Fr Borg, who acted like a chump, doing his own side of the abortion debate a huge disservice. The Curia was right to ask him to take down his post.
Next, I don’t want to criticise Portelli Bonnici. In her position, I’d react similarly and send a message to anyone who wants to mess with me.
I want to defend free speech. It’s important to get it right.
There’s a fundamental irony when the mainstream media misunderstands the notion of hate speech. In Europe, the accusation of hate speech, misapplied, has been used to shut down voices wanting a more open society.
We don’t need to go far. Daphne Caruana Galizia was called – wrongly – a “hate blogger”, including by our then minister of justice, Owen Bonnici. She could certainly say things that were abusive, offensive or deplorable. But she never engaged in what the law considers hate speech; indeed, she was never charged with it and she’d have won in the courts if the police had tried it on.
And, yet, she got called a hate blogger. Without a hint of irony, that charge was used to dehumanise her as a witch. Her dehumanisation probably enabled some people to think they could get away with her assassination.
That’s why it’s important to get hate speech right. If we get it wrong today – even if it’s against people we view unfavourably – you can be sure that, some time tomorrow, it will be used to victimise people who should be protected.
Let’s, therefore, get to the nub of the matter. For Fr Borg to be guilty of hate speech, it’s not only his words we need to look at. Context is everything.
Despite the range of definitions of hate speech, and disputes around its boundaries, the authorities are clear. The words must be not simply abusive and hostile; they must involve a clear intention to incite violence or intimidation or else carry an imminent risk.
It’s worth defending free speech because it lies at the base of a whole set of other rights- Ranier Fsadni
In 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur said that carrying out such an assessment included evaluating the means of communication used: a statement issued to a restricted group of Facebook users wasn’t the same as a public statement on a mainstream website.
That, by the way, is why Caruana Galizia was never guilty of hate speech, whereas Labour propaganda was. What she wrote did not reach the bar of incitement. Labour propaganda, on the other hand, did, as documented in the report of the public inquiry.
As the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has determined: “The public intent of inciting discrimination, hostility or violence must be present for hate speech to be penalised.”
(“Discrimination” here doesn’t mean getting people to look at you unfavourably. It means jeopardising your rights.)
Back to Fr Borg: am I saying he’s innocent? No. His innocence depends on whether his words can be linked to credible threats or risk of violence and intimidation. That’s for an investigation to determine.
It doesn’t stop with hate. Portelli Bonnici has referred to harassment and libel and she could be right. But harassment and libel are not necessarily hate speech; that’s why they’re covered by different laws.
Hate cannot be just read off Fr Borg’s words. Calling someone Hitler? That needs to be seen in the light of Church leaders calling abortion a “holocaust”.
Calling someone a murderer because they’re pro-choice? That’s possibly libel because – even on Fr Borg’s own terms – calling for the legalisation of abortion involves no killing. Same goes for “criminal”: abortion is a crime; calling for its legalisation is not.
Other than that, however, the idea that abortion is murder lies at the heart of the political debate: bringing murder into the conversation, therefore, has to be protected political speech.
The one thing you can read off Fr Borg’s words is that he spoke in a manner that undermined his own cause. But we’re discussing free speech not Christian ethics and there’s no point defending free speech if it’s simply to defend people who are agreeable, pleasant and conventional. Free speech is there to defend what’s disturbing and offensive, even if we deplore it.
It’s worth defending free speech because it lies at the base of a whole set of other rights: from expressing ourselves to having a say in government. Like any other right, free speech isn’t absolute. But the jurisprudence is clear and surely right: when in doubt, we should err on the side of liberty.
For the press to misunderstand when speech can be curtailed, that’s to saw off the branch on which you sit.