The heinous murder of Paulina Dembska has led to wider discussions on reforms to safeguarding women’s right to safety in society but also on the need to change mentalities.

Civil society groups advocating justice are also asking for a series of measures, such as including femicide in law as an aggravating factor to homicide. Legally, this would change little, since homicides already carry the maximum sentence; therefore, the absence of a higher punishment will make this an ineffective deterrent.

Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis said this much in response to the idea floated by civil society.

However, the Council of Europe’s GREVIO report of 2020 highlighted serious shortcomings in the law and the way it is applied and interpreted by the police and the judiciary.

In particular, this report attacked the “insensitivity” of the judiciary and the lack of training given to the police force in handling such cases, resulting in low convictions for these crimes.

At the time, Zammit Lewis stated that the government “had taken important measures to combat domestic and gender-based violence”. But these efforts, in the light of the raft of court stories about domestic abuse and rape, appear to be imperceptible. Law enforcement is unable to deter violence on women and the judiciary incapable of delivering speedy and effective justice. In fact, there is a single magistrate assigned to these cases and victims have to wait for a year to be summoned to court.

The police pitched in with a statement that Dembska’s murder “was not gender-based” and Times of Malta later reported that two men were assaulted by the murderer earlier that night – who were, however, neither raped nor murdered. The police statement implicitly dismissed any suggestion of femicide.

The police were criticised by women’s organisations for their insensitivity, reinforcing the widespread belief that they still have a lot to learn in dealing with such cases. In this regard, the inclusion of femicide as an aggravator to homicide would be a purely symbolic measure. There are serious shortcomings in the police’s treatment of such cases that need to be tackled. Updating the Criminal Code is simply not enough.

Changing mentalities and defeating stereotypes are key to a holistic reform. Which is why femicide should be recognised and called for what it is.

Some reactions to Dembska’s murder have been surprising. While a number of prominent figures chose not to condemn it, two men-led organisations scrambled to stake a claim: men are victims too and we should speak of “gendercide” not femicide. This narrative, just like the ‘All Lives Matter’ slogan coughed up in reaction to the anger of the Black Lives Matter movement, amounts to an attempt at diluting the seriousness of the situation. But the statistics speak clearly: women are the biggest victims of gender-based violence and men are the bigger perpetrators. Second, the unease behind such statements is evident. One can only wonder why women asking for their basic rights and protection make men feel threatened. However, statements made by some women’s rights activists suggesting every male is a potential rapist/murderer are counter-productive.

Culture change needs to be brought about by tackling gender stereotypes and discrimination. The media, with its influence on public opinion, and schools, has a leading role to play in fighting these stereotypes.

Recognising that women are the true victims of these crimes, without apologias and disclaimers, is but a small first step to changing mentalities.

Which is why the recognition of femicide should not remain a semantic debate but a small step towards realising that things have to change.