Updated 16:00. A copy of the actual decision by Magistrate Joe Mifsud is here. The premises for his conclusion are carefully documented so perhaps there may be alternative analyses of his reasoning. 30_01_2018-3_2018-109986

I’ve known Magistrate Joe Mifsud for many years. He was my first boss when he headed news at Bay Radio. I was 15 and as green as grass. He wasn’t patient but he knew his stuff. And I learnt a thing or two from him that came in handy when without a plan and without a goal I went back to journalism 25 years later.

While I’m back where I had started, Joe Mifsud is a Magistrate and a unique one at that because his background in journalism and politics informs the media sensitivity of his work and his court sentences. He knows better than most what hits the headlines, and uses that. Our Magistrates cannot be fired though theoretically they can be promoted. There usually is very little motivation to seek to be protagonists. The practice is actually moderately frowned upon. And to mix contradictory metaphors his quotes have raised eye-brows before.

His remarks at the acquittal of Brandon Bartolo, accused of hate speech for saying “Tmur tihdu f’.. kemm anda … awnhekkedin pajjizna .. ahna religjon wihed biss … huma guests iridu jimxu al ligijiet tagna … majogobomx?? F… off back to your country!'” about social inclusion campaigner Sara Ezabe were illogical, not to mention dangerous.

The Magistrate sought to empathise with Brandon Bartolo and to defend his right to express a view founded in the legitimate concern on lack of effective policy of dealing with migration.

While empathy and mercy are central to justice, so is logic and consistency. A father who kills a child may argue that he was concerned about global warming and attempted to reduce emissions by making sure there were less mouths to feed. A stretched simile to be sure. But you get my point.

There may be a policy weakness on immigration, though frankly that too is a matter for debate. But even accepting the notion, taking it out on anyone but those responsible for making that policy is simply not justified by those concerns.

Hate speech is forbidden because it is hurtful in and of itself. And because it is an antecedent to worse crimes. Whenever European cities suffered economic downturns, the Jews were blamed. Derided, blamed, bullied. Eventually beaten, robbed, exiled. Finally killed. This is why we have laws against verbal, or any other form of attacks, on people because of the group they belong to.

“There’s only space for one religion here” is hate speech. “Fuck off back to your country is hate speech”.

I feel attacked because I do not belong to Bardon Bartolo’s religion, such as it is. And if what he means by one religion is Christianity then Christians too should feel indignant at the idea that minority faiths deserve exile. After all Christianity is a minority religion in many countries around the world, possibly in more countries than in those in which it is a majority.

And what about me? What country am I going to fuck off to? Is there a promised land for atheists where we can all be deported to?

Empathising with the accused is a duty of justice. But empathising with the victim is also a responsibility. Our courts have just told the many hateful bigots amongst us that it is kosher to “send people to their country” if they’re Muslim or otherwise not wearing disnified uniforms of Roman centurions on Good Friday, even if this is indeed their country. As long as beneath the venom and the hate they have genuine concern that policy-makers are not doing enough to prevent migration.

This can’t be the last word of our courts on this.