[attach id=238698 size="medium"]Labour leader Joseph Muscat. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli[/attach]
Labour leader Joseph Muscat said yesterday he agrees with discussing the removal of criminal libel but defended Labour candidates who have used the law.
Dr Muscat said removing criminal libel was an issue that could be discussed as part of constitutional reform proposed by his party.
However, he also noted Labour candidate Manuel Mallia was within his rights to instruct police to prosecute Nationalist Party general secretary Paul Borg Olivier for libel and seek imprisonment.
Asked about Dr Mallia’s comments over the weekend, Dr Muscat said criminal libel was on the statute books and everybody had a right to use it.
“Laws should favour the media but there must also be responsibility,” he said at the end of a visit to remote gaming company Betsson in Ta’ Xbiex.
Unlike civil proceedings for libel, in which the injured party sues for damages, in criminal libel proceedings it is the police that prosecute after receiving a complaint. An individual found guilty in criminal libel proceedings is subject to a fine but is liable to a prison term.
Criminal libel has long been deemed anachronistic and does not feature in most European democracies.
A parliamentary committee had started discussing the matter in the last legislature but the issue remained unresolved.
This electoral campaign has seen a flurry of criminal libel cases being instituted by Labour candidates against PN exponents over what they claimed were defamatory statements.
A day of deflection
On March 8, voters are expected to think about the choices facing them in the ballot booth, without being distracted by a media onslaught.
It is the day of reflection mandated by law on the eve of every general election, during which newspapers, television stations and radio stations cannot report political content. The same applies to election day.
But the silence that applies to the traditional media is challenged in the virtual world, which the law broadly covers with the words “other means of communication”.
While newspapers are prohibited from reporting mass meetings held on the last day of the campaign, in cyberspace people will continue dishing out political spiel.
The day of reflection has pretty much been rendered a day of deflection as politics shifts from the traditional media to the online environment.
But does the legal requirement to observe a day of reflection still make sense today?
Labour leader Joseph Muscat yesterday acknowledged that the conventional media had almost taken a secondary role with the onset of social media.
“We may have to rethink everything, even the way we vote,” he said when asked whether the day of reflection should be removed.
He did not elaborate but whatever the case the law cannot be changed for this election.
The General Elections Act provides for a blanket ban on election day and the preceeding 24 hours.
It says that “no person shall address any public meeting or any other gathering whatsoever in any place or building accessible to the public, or on the broadcasting media, on any matter intended or likely to influence voters in the exercise of the franchise”.
The law also prohibits the publication of any statement or declaration on newspapers, printed matter or “other means of communication” to the public.
Any individual who breaks the law is liable for a fine of €1,164 or up to six months in prison.