Ex-footballer Costas Malekkos reignited the freedom of speech furore, and women’s groups are on the warpath

To call it a milepost year in anti-free speech might be taking it too far, but definitely 2024 had its fair share of such troubling incidents. But the more precedents are set, the smaller the so-called ‘Overton window’ of acceptable speech gets.

The latest such kerfuffle happened in early December when an ex-footballer made certain, shall we say, edgy remarks while he was a guest on a popular television show.

Among other things, during a conversation with the female host, Costas Malekkos said: “You women have to accept that the man is in charge.”

And: “Women have taken the wrong road. Men are men, end of. When your husband isn’t a man at home, you’ll divorce him.”

Also: “A man is allowed to do whatever he wants.”

Women’s movement Pogo wasted no time calling down the thunder. They filed a complaint to the chief of police. They addressed a letter to the justice minister, the ombudswoman, the commissioner for gender equality and the chairman of the broadcasting authority. They cited the legislation on combating sexism, which in some cases constitutes a criminal offence and even provides for jail time. More on that law later.

In short, Pogo went on the warpath, making a ‘federal case’ out of this. Malekkos is now under police investigation – for his opinions, his speech.

Calling the reaction extreme would be an understatement. But the law is there, so Pogo used it.

Who was harmed? How? Nobody knows.

The 2020 ‘anti-sexism’ law defines sexism as “the publicly or privately manifested sexist behaviour targeted at a specific person or a specific group of persons, and which consists of an act, gesture, visual presentation, practice, written or spoken word based on the idea or perception that a person or a group of persons is inferior due to their gender…”

And where such behaviour “aims to (a) violate/impair the rights of the victim/s, by insulting, denigrating and harming their dignity, the result being the denial of access to public services and unequal access to resources; or (b) to injure physically, mentally or socio-economically the victim/s; or (c) to create for the victim/s an intimidating, hostile, humiliating, demeaning and offensive environment; or (d) to promote and enhance gender stereotypes and gender discrimination”.

Again, one has to ask: who was harmed? How? Can one demonstrate any harm from Malekkos’ comments? What does ‘harm’ even mean – emotional distress?

The law spells out the punishment: “Whosoever intentionally manifests, or engages in, sexism…is guilty of an offence and, in the event of conviction, is liable to a prison sentence of up to one year or a fine not exceeding €5,000, or both.”

Let’s assume the investigation gets dropped, doesn’t make it to court. Should Malekkos – or whoever else – have to go through that? And that’s the best-case scenario from his perspective.

Who thought up and wrote these draconian laws? Where the language is so vague, so how do you decide if any harm was caused? How do you decide whether it had any malicious intent?

It doesn’t matter – at the very least you’re liable to get investigated. For speaking your mind. Thought crime. Where the state – not the ‘offended’ or ‘harmed’ party – comes after you.

Ladies, I want you to be able to bad-mouth men all you want. I want you to be able to crank out all the clichés, all the stereotypes about guys. But – and this is the point – I do not want you to ever get in trouble with the law for doing that, for expressing your views, for speaking.

Apparently the authors of the aforementioned law disagree. They’d like to control our speech, using the threat of the force of the state to browbeat us into submission. Reminiscent of what went on in certain regimes during the mid-20th century.

Hyperbole? Today the law criminalises ‘sexist’ language, tomorrow what else? It’s that slippery slope, the slide into autocracy. Meantime the very sponsors and backers of such laws have the audacity to insist they are pro-free speech.

Buckling under the pressure – or bullied you might say – Malekkos issued an apology. Well, sort of. Communicating with the public via the television show host, he relayed that he “understands” his remarks disturbed some people, and why.

It made no difference: Skevi Koukouma, the austere head of the Pogo organisation, waved off the apology and insisted the matter be investigated. Apparently the social opprobrium wasn’t enough. Pogo and others want their pound of flesh; Malekkos must be made an example of.

What of the rights of those who land in legal hot water for exercising their right to free speech? Do they get to counter-sue for being inconvenienced? Who can they sue? Do they sue the state, or the person/persons filing a ‘sexism’ complaint to the authorities? Does such a process even exist? Or does the accuser enjoy total immunity, always getting off Scot-Free?

Next, the ‘fake news’ bill reared its ugly head this year. It provides for jail time for the dissemination of fake news. Under the proposed law, the attorney-general will have the power to determine what constitutes defamation, which will be reclassified from a civil offence to a criminal one.

Attorney-general Giorgos Savvides is an enthusiast. He said the bill addresses “threatening behaviour” and other reprehensible conduct which had it taken place outside of the internet would be against the law.

“As a state, we have to draw the line between freedom of speech and impunity,” he asserted.

“As a state”. Gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling doesn’t it?

Savvides added: “Every individual has a right to criticism. Harsh criticism. It is a right accepted by our courts of law that freedom of speech allows for tough criticism on public officials.

“But swearing and threatening peoples’ lives crosses a line which I believe should be legally regulated.”

Both the International Press Institute and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe voiced alarm at the proposed legislation, warning it might end up repressing legitimate dissent and criticism.

Critics also said the legislation would create a “chilling effect” on media freedoms, inevitably pushing journalists to self-censor.

Faced with local pushback, the government agreed to withdraw the bill and rework it. We shall see – such drives rarely go away.