Justice Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici is baffled at how Labour leader Joseph Muscat can accuse government of "stealth" when it imposed tougher penalties to protect children from pornography.

"We did nothing backhandedly. On the contrary, we acted correctly and both sides of the House agreed we have to fight child pornography," Dr Mifsud Bonnici said.

The minister added that Article 208 of the Criminal Code was amended to complement other legislation. Otherwise the law would have been "lopsided", with Article 208 having lenient penalties and the subsequent Article 208A slapping a fine on the offender.

"Dr Muscat is not a lawyer and cannot judge the situation by what appears in the media.

"His MP José Herrera raised several points at committee level, but it was always clear throughout that this change was being made to protect children - we both voted in favour of the law," he said.

His reaction comes in the wake of Dr Muscat's admission that his party had not meant to back the legal amendment, but it had been "sold" to the opposition as part of a package of laws to strengthen penalties for child pornography, and passed as a "measure of stealth".

Dr Muscat was defending himself after the Front Against Censorship accused his party of saying one thing during a meeting and then backtracking by voting for a change to the law in Parliament in June.

Article 208 is the same clause under which Mark Camilleri, the 21-year-old editor of the University student newspaper Realtà, was charged for publishing a graphic story.

Under the amendment, violating Article 208 on the production, circulation and possession of material which can be deemed pornographic if intended for display in a public place can now land an offender with a six to 12-month jail term (before it was a maximum of six months), while the fines have more than doubled.

The front believes this change is intended to instil "a culture of terror" in the artistic community, but Dr Mifsud Bonnici insisted this was not the case. He said a specific parliamentary committee was working to update the definition of what constituted obscenities to reflect today's reality.

"I believe we should have public meetings in Parliament where people can come forward and discuss their stand on pornographic books, pay-per-view porn in hotel rooms and the like. Isn't it obvious that things have changed in society since the last definition of obscenity in 1975?" he said.

"But we are working on establishing guidelines of what is considered porn, and the sooner we do this the better."

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.