Under unjust pressure

I have reflected quite a while before I decided to pen this article. I wanted to assure myself that I was not being paranoid but, then, there were those blogs and they convinced me otherwise. In truth, it has become, so to speak, trendy (that's the word I find fit to describe the attitude) for certain sections of the media and others to criticise unjustly the so-called free professions.

This made me recall an unhappy experience I passed through in my early years in politics, quite some time ago. There never was and there is not a problem with having lawyers as politicians; I daresay, quite the opposite.

In truth, some of the best politicians we ever had over the years came from the legal profession and more so were penal lawyers.

Traditionally, this never led and should never lead to a conflict of interest.

Back then, however, we lawyers, for whatever reason, were instructed not to take up certain briefs, especially those connected with the trafficking of narcotics.

Correctly or otherwise, the then leadership of the party felt and, consequently, decided, that defending people accused of certain crimes could expose the politician to certain criticism.

Though I certainly did toe the line, I had instinctively disagreed with the position being taken and I did not refrain from saying so.

The most fundamental and indispensable characteristic of the free professions is the liberty of the professional to always act freely and according to his conscience.

If you remove this attribute, then this profession is no longer free.

It is therefore paramount for the particular individual to weigh for himself the pros and cons of any brief before accepting it. His decision, therefore, should by no means ever be, a priori, conditioned.

It can never be stressed enough how important it is in a democracy for every accused person to be in a position to seek assistance by the lawyer of his own choice. This signifies clearly that any censorship in this regard would indirectly be denying such an inherent right.

Incorrectly, at times, criminal lawyers are thought of as being sympathetic with criminality. This is fallacious! Our Philosophy of Law professor used to tell us over and over again that a defence counsel defends the person and never the crime, and how true this observation is! Criminal lawyers defend persons who are presumed and who can actually at times be proved to be innocent notwithstanding the seriousness of the offence attributed to suspects.

It is also, undoubtedly, counter-productive and dangerous to classify crimes by saying that "you can defend this type of alleged criminal but not the other". In truth, all crimes are heinous and society does well to express revulsion at such acts. In this sense, if lawyer politicians were to refrain from defending persons accused of certain crimes they could, at the end of the day, be interpreted as condoning other types of crime. Such reasoning is, to say the least, illogical.

Thankfully, the censorship I wrote about earlier lasted only shortly and was soon aborted because it eventually proved to be a contradiction in terms for the reasons just stated.

However, all this surely does not mean that a politician should not be sensitive to public perception. Thus, he should refrain as much as possible from acting in a manner that could embarrass his party. What is important, however, is that the decision, no matter how hard to take, must always remain his sole prerogative and the result of common sense. There is no place for imposition here.

What I find annoying is that, notwithstanding what has been stated, there is a manifest tendency among certain media exponents to unduly continue hammering on private practitioners and, at times, creating sensations and fabricating conspiracy theories. A number of professionals are picked upon for doing what is, after all, merely their duty.

This unfortunate attitude should be lamented because it undermines the serenity with which professionals should be free to operate. Disturbing such serenity would be to the detriment of the public.

Lawyers, nonetheless, are not the only ones who are bearing the brunt of such attitudes. To take one example, architects are nowadays very much in the line of fire. They are often slated for representing certain clients before the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa), which criticism increases once they are successful. It is the song that should be criticised, not the singer. If the establishment makes the wrong decisions or if, likewise, the government promulgates the wrong regulations, then, undoubtedly, it is the establishment and the government that should be severely condemned and not the humble professional who would be merely earning his living.

Professionals should not be immune to criticism. But this should only be forthcoming when due, that is, upon proved misbehaviour or the non-observance of ethics. To be smeared simply for doing one's best is simply unacceptable.

Dr Herrera is a Labour member of Parliament.