Putrid cow manure. Cockroach. Loose stools. Stinking excrement. Spit. Birdbrain. Neck dirt. DNA of family-inherited hatred.
These are some of the choice insults on MEP Alex Agius Saliba’s Facebook page. Others are too obscene to reproduce. He didn’t upload them himself. His followers did, in response to his trigger. He was targeting a columnist critical of Labour’s government.
The MEP, our representative, has the power to delete those vitriolic posts. Some are just puerile. Others outright threatening and violent. “Just say the word and we will trash the hell out of this scum and excrement (inkaxkruhom kollha) as soon as possible (Illum qabel għada),” one posted on another Labour candidate’s page.
Agius Saliba facilitates such level of public discourse on his Facebook page. With a click, he could remove those posts. But chooses not to and is therefore morally responsible for the actual and potential harm caused. But, apart from moral responsibility, is Agius Saliba legally responsible?
The answer comes from Australia. The high court ruled that “the page owner is legally responsible for user comments by third parties on posts”. The court found that “merely facilitating and encouraging comments amounted to participation in the communication of the material even if the original person posting was not aware of the content of later comments”.
Many have described the decision as a “historic step forward that protects people from unmitigated social media mob attacks”. For others, the court’s decision went too far.
The impact of the ruling is already being felt in Australia. Tasmanian Premier Peter Gutwein disallowed all comments on some of his Facebook posts. The premiers of New South Wales and Victoria are considering doing so too. This leads to reduced interactions on Facebook posts. That will surely deter many politicians from following Gutwein’s steps.
What the court judgment ensures is that all those, particularly politicians, who run Facebook pages or other social medial accounts will need to moderate all comments at all times and delete potentially defamatory and illegal content.
The tone, images and language many politicians use often encourage and incite hostile, offensive, intimidatory vitriol we have all become familiar with. Agius Saliba must know what’s on his Facebook page. He is not a passive unwitting victim of Facebook’s functionality. The more extreme, offensive and aggressive the posts, the more publicity and media presence the MEP gains. And that is what counts. Instead of doing what is decent, appropriate and expected of a representative, he facilitates a bullying, intimidating and abusive culture which he benefits from.
Overtly offensive vulgarity does nothing to foster debate or discussion. It disrupts all meaningful conversations. It creates an unsafe space both virtually and physically. The vitality of any political culture depends on free and vigorous expression of opinion. The shocking vile abuse that MEP Agius Saliba allows on his own Facebook page does nothing to foster that expression.
The MEP lacks a basic modicum of decency. And he is not alone. Many other politicians, election candidates and party members are guilty of the same reckless and irresponsible behaviour.
Nobody in public life should engage in intimidatory behaviour. Nor should they condone or tolerate it- Kevin Cassar
In December 2017, Lord Bew presented the UK parliamentary standards committee’s 17th report – Report on Intimidation in Public Life. It addressed the intimidatory, bullying and abusive culture hindering freedom of discussion and debate.
Bew targeted the threatening vitriolic abuse on social media. He blamed the political parties for failure of leadership in calling out intimidatory behaviour. He implored them to work together to draw up a code of conduct and appropriate disciplinary procedures and sanctions for those who breach it.
Sadly, many of our representatives do not have the foggiest clue how they should behave. The lack of a code of conduct guiding them how to behave, particularly on social media, aggravates the situation. Worse still, both major parties own media organisations, complete with TV and radio, whose role is not to promote intelligent discussion but to target critics, a skill perfectly honed by ONE.
Malta’s failure in political leadership is stark. The recent dark events and the Caruana Galizia inquiry have done nothing to stir those leaders into action. Instead of making it absolutely clear that they will not tolerate intimidation, and aggressive and hostile discourse, our party leaders remain silent. They fail to act, thus condoning that hostile environment that their own MPs, MEPs and party candidates foment. They remain silent as their own party stations target individuals for mob assault. Qui tacet consentit.
Nobody in public life should engage in intimidatory behaviour. Nor should they condone or tolerate it. From our MPs and MEPs, we expect the highest of standards. They have a particular responsibility to recognise how their tone shapes public debate and should not themselves engage in derogatory, dehumanising and abusive language, particularly against the very citizens they represent.
Amnesty International stated that abuse on social media bears a huge psychological impact and has a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression. What we witness on our representatives’ social media pages is an exercise in emboldening supporters to be ruder and cruder, with no attempt to moderate or delete violent and vulgar posts.
Party leaders have key responsibilities. As Bew wrote in his report, they should set the appropriate tone for debate. They should lay the example for candidates, campaigners and supporters. In their own debates, they should be respectful and civil. There should be no shouting, pointing fingers, intimidating tone of voice, interrupting and drowning out the adversary. Aggressive rhetoric should be abandoned.
Secondly, leaders must tackle intimidatory behaviour undertaken, facilitated or encouraged by their own party members. They must provide support to those facing intimidation.
The current situation is bad enough. As a general election approaches, tensions will run higher. Intimidatory content is likely to increase. And we all know where that leads. Now is the time for leaders to act.
Otherwise, we will have to endure representatives who disgrace their party, their country and themselves and the risk of serious physical harm.