Ex-religion teacher confesses to defilement via SMS

Raymond Sammut: The only guideline needed in this sort of case is common sense. There is no system to keep predators away from children so children need to be kept away from predators. The only way to do that is to ensure that everyone knows who they are. Banning publication of this teacher's name runs contrary to that common sense principle.

Protecting the identity of the offender does not protect the minors. It protects the school. All schools in Malta are now under suspicion. A school that is not careful enough on how it selects and filters its employees does not deserve to be protected. The safety of school children in Malta should not be sacrificed for the sake of a school's "reputation". In my view, this decision is utterly disgraceful and unprincipled. Clearly, the rule of privilege is still very much the norm in Malta -- a situation which is appalling and unacceptable. All kinds of suspicion emanates from this decision. For example, are we to think that someone high up in Malta may have been "educated" in this school, so we had better not know which school it is that employed and harboured this man? This is insulting to the Maltese public. It is clear to me that concrete guidelines are lacking as to what and what not magistrates can do in the Maltese courts.

Further to my previous comment, wherein I mentioned a case regarding a 57-year-old man, please note that he has only been charged (as opposed to being found guilty), yet still, his name has been released.

Would it still have been released had be been a private school teacher and had the magistrate been a different one?

The man is now self-employed. I hope that's not just another name for 'private lesson teacher'.

Whilst I agree with the ban on the name of the minors involved, so as to protect their identity, I feel that the public - especially parents of school age children - has a right to know the name of the school (there could very well be more victims who would come forward if such name is published).

More importantly, the public has a right to know the name of the perverted perpetrator. Protecting the identity of such a pervert is dangerous on more than one count: it would not serve to dissuade other perverts from acting in the same way, knowing that their identity could be protected, but of greater concern is the fact that this man is still free to come into contact with children. Banning him from "schools or institutions that have minors in attendance" is simply not enough. The man himself might have young children, or may at some point have children with somebody who is unaware of his track record; he may come into contact with young nephews, nieces or children of friends.; he may give private lessons ("ragel tajjeb, kien jghallem ir-religjon..."); the list is endless.


Not a toss has been given to any children who may well end up this pervert's prey.

Strangely, The Times yesterday reported a case where a 57-year-old man was found guilty of defiling children, too. In this case, the pervert was named. I find it no surprise that - despite the different circumstances of the case, but it was defilment all the same - the magistrate in question was a woman, who most probably sees things in a different light.