Gospel singer and TV personality Phyllisienne Brincat has been cleared of all criminal charges over her television comments on disability and the original sin.

In a judgment delivered earlier this month, the court ruled that when she linked disability to original sin on a TVM discussion show last year, Brincat never said that persons with disabilities are the fruit of sin.

The court ruled she was misinterpreted, was not allowed to adequately explain herself on the show and that her words did not stir up hatred towards people with disabilities.

On the contrary, it was Brincat who became the victim of repugnance over a statement that was attributed to her and which she never said.

“Not only did her words not stir hatred towards persons with disability, but they had the effect of creating repugnance against the accused for a statement that was attributed to her,” Magistrate Jean Paul Grech concluded.

Not only did her words fail to create a sense of hatred towards persons with disabilities, but they had the “complete opposite effect”, he added.

Moreover, the police superintendent who arraigned her admitted he was himself against pressing charges and only did so under instructions from the AG, the court noted.

And the University of Malta’s dean of theology, who initially condemned her statement, confessed that when he watched the entire programme he was shocked to discover she had never said those words.

Brincat on Popolin in October 2023. Screenshot from TVM programme Popolin

Illness and original sin

The controversy erupted in October last year, when Brincat – an avid Christian believer – was invited as a panellist on TVM’s discussion show Popolin on the topic of religion.

At one point, presenter Quinton Scerri referred to a conversation the two had off-air before the programme in which she “linked illness with sin”, and asked her about it.

Brincat explained that illness was the result of original sin.

Scerri then asked whether a couple having a child with a condition was due to the ‘fruit of sin’ and Brincat again referred to original sin as written in the Old Testament.

Original sin is the Christian teaching of mankind’s sinfulness because of Adam’s fall from grace. According to the teaching, all people are corrupted by Adam’s sin through natural generation, which means all people enter the world guilty before God.

Members of the audience accused Brincat of being offensive and fomenting stigma when she linked disability to sin, and the controversy only ballooned in the following days.

Scores of critics, activists and politicians lashed out at Brincat on social media, including the Nationalist Party and the Labour government’s Inclusion Minister Julia Farrugia Portelli, who described the statement as “disgusting” and stigma fuelled by “religious fanaticism”.

“You have no idea how many people you hurt,” Farrugia Portelli said, addressing Brincat.

Julia Farrugia reacted to the statement with a post on Facebook.

The Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disability then filed a formal complaint with the Broadcasting Authority over the television programme. The commission said it was unacceptable that the programme allowed this discourse to be aired during prime time on the national television station.

Days later, a group of 150 people with disabilities and their relatives filed a formal complaint asking the police to investigate the claims, arguing they were discriminatory and constituted hate speech.

They demanded that the police investigate and then prosecute Brincat – and anyone else responsible – over hate speech and for inciting hate speech against people with disabilities.

Eventually Brincat was charged with misuse of electronic equipment and hate speech.

Brincat ‘misinterpreted’ says court

In his judgment the magistrate said he watched the entire programme and concluded Brincat never said that persons with disability are the result of sin.

“What she was effectively trying to explain – whether you agree with her or not – is that all sorts of suffering in the world, including illnesses, came about due to what theology defines as ‘the original sin’ committed by Adam and Eve,” the court said.

“As she was trying to elaborate on this point, she and another panel member started talking over each other and she did not get the opportunity to clarify what she meant.”

This gave people the wrong impression that she was insisting that persons with disability are the fruit of sin, the court added. This impression was further strengthened through the questions and arguments posed to Brincat by the programme presenter and members of the audience.

“It’s a classic case of confusion worse confounded,” the court said.

“The question that appeared on screen – ‘Is disability the fruit of sin?’ – added to this confusion.”

The magistrate emphasised that Brincat never asserted that persons with disabilities resulted from their parents’ sins. Rather, she explicitly denied this claim during the programme, even citing a personal example of a relative with a disability, affirming that their condition was not a consequence of sin and that their parents were “innocent”.

That part of the programme ended up in a “shouting match”, the magistrate added, and “as a result of the confusion, words were attributed to her, even though she effectively never said them”.

“The accused was misinterpreted. The presenter then stopped the discussion and the public remained with the impression of a statement that was never uttered, because the accused never had the opportunity to make a real and proper clarification.”

Theology dean changed his mind

Moreover, the theology faculty dean, who had issued a statement at the height of the controversy condemning Brincat’s words, admitted in court that when, months later, he watched the entire show, he was “shocked” to discover that she never said those words.

Fr Stefan Attard said that when he watched the programme he felt that what Brincat said was not different than the teaching of the Catholic Church and that she was not saying “anything extraordinarily different from what we say”.

Officer didn’t want to press charges

Even police superintendent Joseph Busuttil, who arraigned Brincat, admitted he was against pressing charges in the first place.

He sent an email to his superiors saying he was “sceptical” about whether Brincat had, in fact, broken the law, as he could not see how her words could stir up violence against persons with disability.

Busuttil ended up pressing charges following instructions from the AG but said that he would have personally not taken action against her if it were up to him, and only did it to follow the AG’s orders.

‘Who will take responsibility?’

Journalist and television host Peppi Azzopardi, who had previously defended Brincat on social media, has flagged the court’s decision in a video on Facebook, in which he lashed out at the people who misjudged her and prosecuted her.

This was a vendetta and an injustice, he said, and someone must take responsibility because, as the court concluded, she was the real victim.

“Why did you charge this woman?! The AG must answer. Why did you press charges anyway, even though the police told you they saw no case?” Azzopardi said.

“Did you watch the programme? Or did you just rely on what was being said on Facebook, because Facebook decides who gets prosecuted nowadays. You should be ashamed of yourselves.”

Brincat lost work and she got married with a criminal sentence hanging over her head, he added.

“Who will take responsibility? Who will compensate her?” Azzopardi asked.

The national broadcaster should also apologise immediately and allow her time to explain herself, he said.

Brincat was assisted by lawyers Benjamin Camilleri and Jeanise Dalli.