Malta

Malta is a small, densely-populated island nation of 450,000 inhabitants, located in the Mediterranean Sea, south of Sicily. It is a parliamentary republic and member state of the European Union. Despite opposition from the Catholic Church, which remains hugely influential, Malta has seen significant progressive reforms in recent years including the introduction of divorce and same-sex civil unions, and the abolition of the country’s “blasphemy” law.

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
There is systematic religious privilege
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is an established church or state religion
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Religious groups control some public or social services
Official symbolic deference to religion
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Constitution and government
There is systematic religious privilege
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is an established church or state religion
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Official symbolic deference to religion
Education and children’s rights
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Religious groups control some public or social services
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Angola, South Sudan, Tuvalu

Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Lesotho, Uzbekistan

No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Albania, Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: Afghanistan, North Korea

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe

It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

Freedom of conscience, religion, and expression are protected in law (Articles 40 and 41, Constitution of Malta). However, in practice, strong preference is afforded to the Roman Catholic Church, and Catholicism remains the official state religion of Malta (Article 2).

Education and children’s rights

The constitution prescribes religious teaching of the Catholic faith as compulsory education in all State schools:

Article 2:
(1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.
(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.
(3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools as part of compulsory education.

However, this last point, Article 2 paragraph 3, is restricted by Article 40 of the Constitution, which provides exceptions:

Article 40:

[…] (2) No person shall be required to receive instruction in religion or to show knowledge or proficiency in religion if, in the case of a person who has not attained the age of sixteen years, objection to such requirement is made by the person who according to law has authority over him and, in any other case, if the person so required objects thereto: Provided that no such requirement shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this article to the extent that the knowledge of, or the proficiency or instruction in, religion is required for the teaching of such religion, or for admission to the priesthood or to a religious order, or for other religious purposes, and except so far as that requirement is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society. […]

About 30% of primary and secondary students in Malta attend private schools, which are predominantly run by the Catholic Church and funded to a large degree by the state.

Following the 1993 concordat between the Vatican and Malta, the state is responsible for all salaries of teaching staff in Catholic schools (with minor contributions from the church), while the church is responsible for the maintenance of the school buildings.
<vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/archivio/documents/rc_seg-st_19930218_santa-sede-rep-malta-scuole_en.html>

Regarding State schools, Mary Darmanin (in Religious Education in a Multicultural Europe: Children, Parents and Schools, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) notes: “Although not obliged to be denominational by the Education Act, State schools in Malta function as de facto Catholic schools in terms of their school ethos and formal RE [religious education] curriculum.” Crucifixes are displayed in classrooms of both Catholic and State schools.

In 2014, schools began to introduce Ethics as a new (non-religious) subject to provide an alternative for those students who opt-out of Religious Studies. The Malta Humanist Association was consulted for drawing up a syllabus for this new subject.)
<independent.com.mt/articles/2014-01-24/news/ethics-to-be-offered-in-government-schools-instead-of-religion-as-from-september-3770875906/>

Family, community and society

Religious oaths

In courts, the default convention is for oaths to be taken on a crucifix. Although a secular oath may be requested, non-religious defendants and witnesses are likely to abstain from this option, for fear of a negative bias in the proceedings. The same is true for the default oath of service for elected parliamentarians that ends with “so help me God”, which is expected to be accompanied by kissing a crucifix.

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

“Blasphemy” law

In 2016 the law on “vilification” of religion, which had criminalized speech on a broad swathe of topics and was frequently used, was finally abolished.

Introducing the bill for abolition in 2016, justice minister Owen Bonnici had said that: “In a democratic country, people should be free to make fun of religions, while not inciting hatred.” Parliament approved the bill at its third and final reading in plenary on 12 July 2016.

The “vilification of religion” law (Article 163 of the penal code) had not been dead letter at the time of its abolition. It had been invoked actively.
<independent.com.mt/articles/2012-12-02/news/malta-among-dwindling-number-of-eu-states-still-with-blasphemy-laws-470450177/>

In 2009, for example, a man received a suspended jail sentence for dressing up as Jesus for carnival and there were 99 convictions for “blasphemy” recorded between January 2012 and September 2012.
<maltatoday.com.mt/news/court_and_police/26215/99-convicted-for-public-blasphemy-in-2012-20130420>

Malta’s criminal code had contained a bill (133) on “crimes against the religious sentiment”, which avoided the word “blasphemy”, but in effect described actions in broad terms that encompass blasphemy:

“Article 163: Whosoever by words, gestures, written matter, whether printed or not, or pictures or by some other visible means, publicly vilifies the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion which is the religion of Malta, or gives offence to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion by vilifying those who profess such religion or its ministers, or anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated to, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic worship, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to six months.

Article 164: Whosoever commits any of the acts referred to in the last preceding article against any cult tolerated by law, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to three months.”

There was a mixed response to the abolition in Malta. The Malta Humanist Association had campaigned for the reform on the basis of free expression and equality and of course welcomed the abolition, while Archbishop Charles Scicluna tweeted: “A sad day for Malta. Lord forgive them: they do not know what they do.”
<end-blasphemy-laws.org/2016/07/malta-abolishes-blasphemy-law/>