It may have come as a big surprise to many individuals who haven't read the Document of Proposals of the Front Against Censorship when they saw me on state television speaking out against Norman Lowell's right for instigating hatred. It seems that Lou Bondi who dedicated at least two programs to Norman Lowell and another program to another self-declared fascist by the name of Jean Gove, thought that the Front Against Censorship is an ultra-liberal movement which is fighting for the absolute right of free speech which would entail that anyone can say what one likes including discourse which can lead to violence.
Fortunately enough thanks to journalists (including Lou Bondi himself), bloggers and the Front Against Censorship the national debate on freedom of expression is running in top gear. It seems that three different positions have now been created on this subject. There is the ultra-liberal position of Lou Bondi, Emmy Bezzina and others who believe that anyone should have the right to say what they want irrelevant of the consequences. There is the position of the Front Against Censorship which holds the same position as the ultra-liberals with the exception that discourse which can lead to violence such as racial-hatred must be controlled and restricted. Finally there is the position of the ultra-conservatives such as the Church which believe that anything offensive must be censored and also punishable with prison sentences.
My article will explain why the position of the Front is the most consistent of the three.
Understanding Fascism and Racism
When Norman Lowell started giving interviews and recording speeches during the very beginning of his political career nobody used to take him seriously. Everybody used to mock him and laugh at his boisterous arguments. Workers downloaded his speeches and showed them to their colleagues in order to have a laugh. Suddenly most of the people who used to mock him, started going to his meetings and dinners and in a couple of weeks, became his supporters.
Hitler had a similar experience. During the 1920s, when he propagated his Final Solution to solve all the problems of Germany in one go, everyone used to laugh him off. The Final Solution was simply a proposal to exterminate all the Jews in Germany and everyone saw that as an impossibility considering the fact that Jews were very numerous and well integrated in German society. But from being considered a freak, historical conditions gave way to Hitler being elected in office in 1933. Ten years later the Final Solution was being executed en masse and millions of Jews were exterminated. The similarities with Hitler and Lowell are not accidental.
The brutal experience of Nazism has taught European people that racism and the propagation of ethnic hatred was not something which should be treated lightly. The Holocaust experience had taught Europeans that in dire social conditions, a society can easily turn to racism making minorities the victims of their time. But Europeans have also learnt that even though racism can grow in times of frustration, killing ethnic minorities will not solve the problems of society. As the Nazis killed millions of Jews, their problems increased and their society at war was engulfed in chaos. So if something was learnt from the Nazi experience is that racism solves nothing, despite the fact that it can be viewed by the masses as an easy solution to all their problems in times of deep social crisis.
Norman Lowell's logic is similar to Hitler's. Lowell's solution to Malta's problems is to banish from the islands all of the African immigrants even at the cost of having them killed. He also wants to violently force immigrants not to enter Maltese waters. He has described citizens who propagate Human Rights as traitors and has also admitted of having the names of these people on a sort of black list. His logic is exactly the same as Hitler's Final Solution: to solve all problems we must get rid of X ethnic minority and anyone who opposes this solution should be removed from society.
Norman Lowell's campaign to propagate his Final Solution has lead to a lot of sporadic acts of violence against immigrants giving the illusion that they are the source of all our problems. In addition to this, a group of people ganged up to execute military style arson and vandalism on the property of the ''traitors'' who speak against racism and also against those who help immigrants in a humanitarian way. Cars were burnt and houses given fire to.
So the problem of hate speech is very clear. In times of economic hardship and social problems, the Final Solution can be viewed by people as an easy solution to their problems. Implementing this Solution is easy as an ethnic minority is more vulnerable than the average citizen and hence acts of violence are easily carried out. This is why I am personally an anti-Fascist and this is why I agree that people such as Norman Lowell should be restrained and controlled: they can easily instigate violence on ethnic minorities and on those who protect their rights. If the state will let fascists and racists have their way, and let them loose spreading their hatred and their violence, we will end up in a society where violence would be a regular sight increasing proportionally to the level of crisis.
This is why Lou Bondi is not quite right when he claims that he is justified in dedicating a whole program to him just because he ridiculed him and exposed his dark side. The logic of Norman Lowell is well known and there wasn't anything new on the programme. Considering the nature of racism and fascism, I can't come to terms with the assumption that Norman Lowell lost support by Lou Bondi's programme. If there is anything that will make Norman Lowell loose support is educating the people and convincing them that the logic of the Final Solution is racist and does not solve anything at all. On the other hand for the sake of not being reduced into a propaganda tool, if a journalist has to analyse the racist facets of our society he or she shouldn't just focus solely on what Norman Lowell says but also on his supporters and the victims of hate speech and racism.
Isn't AVG's Li Tkisser Sewwi offensive and sexist? Should it be censored?
There is a difference between propagating sexism and racism and exposing it to the public. For example American History X is a social-realist movie which exposes a typical American Nazi community. The community is tightly bonded and its members love each other like a nice family. One of their young Nazi leaders who kills two black people is considered as a hero by most of his friends. Is the film thus elating and propagating Nazism? No, it is just giving a realist picture of a small community of Nazis and it shouldn't be hidden from the public. No one should hide the real facts of society even if they are macabre and horrid as they might seem. Same goes with Li Tkisser Sewwi: it is a real depiction of sexism in Maltese society and this reality shouldn't be hidden from the public just because it is a negative facet of our society.
This is why the ultra-conservatives who supported the ban on Ir-Realta' Issue 8 were being absoloutely ridiculous. If these people consider reality as ''offensive'' and want it banned, than they might as well stay at home taking LSD and imagining themselves in an ideal world where sexism and racism don't exist. Problems can not be solved by ignoring them but only by exposing them in their real nature.
But can art instigate violence? There are people who believe that violent video games and violent films instigate violence. There are studies which prove this and there are also studies which prove the contrary. However I personally believe that people aren't that so stupid as to go and shoot people after watching a violent film or go and rape women after reading a story about sexism. A person must have serious problems if he or she imitates a violent action from a film or a character from a fictional story. The context in which a piece of art is presented is different from the context of political discourse. When one reads a story or goes to a film, the intention for doing so is to either learn new ideas or for pure enjoyment. When one listens to a political speech or watches an interview of a politician the context is completely different. A politician isn't watched for pure enjoyment or just to learn new ideas, but also to find solutions for real and actual problems. Now art can sometimes be so much thought-provoking that it directly or indirectly offers political solutions however I am quite sceptical of how a film or a story can propagate the idea of the Final Solution without being reduced to the level of propaganda and thus abandoning any artistic features.
But in more practical terms, politics and art can be easily distinguished with their context and their final intent. The rule of law should consider these aspects so as not to have any laws which unjustly condemn citizens for their innocence. One such case where on the premise of preventing violence an innocent citizen was granted a one-month suspended prison sentence and a fine, is Karl Farrugia who posted a comment on Facebook which said that the Pope should be shot so as to experience the same kind of suffering that Christ went through. The context of the comment was in a protest against the Pope and the intent was not to instigate violence on the Pope but rather to show the great difference of Christ's humility and the Pope's outstanding power. However the comment can still be legally considered as threatening and the person who wrote the comment (altough having innocent intentions) should have been more careful in his selection of words.
In order to conclude I would like to invite readers not to discuss this issue only with reference to absolute philosophical assumptions but by also considering the social conditions we live in.
|
