One of the ‘champagne socialists’ of whom we have many mooching around, though with the variant today that some of them prefer champagne because their switcher friends are of the (perceived) class that likes the bubbly stuff, poked a jibe at me that his Saturday mornings are spent getting annoyed at me, until he gets to the bit where I mention decent places to eat, when all is forgiven.

This chap in particular isn’t, to be fair, one of the type I mentioned above, he’s always been upfront about his beliefs and his mates take him for what he is, which is basically a decent type: in fact, he even offered me a coffee, though having had my caffeine intake for the morning, I passed. There are limits to the extent to which I can put up with tremors of the hand.

To put him out of his misery, I’ll put the fluffy stuff up front and mention the places of note for nourishment purposes this week at this point.

Mid-week last week, after the rather excellent opening concert of the Victoria International Arts Festival (the Malta Philharmonic continues from strength to strength) we had a late supper at Iċ-Ċima, in Xlendi. Notwithstanding having kept the chef and the staff hanging around waiting for us, the meal was excellent, on a par with the location.

We watched, or tried to as the screen was doing a good imitation of Capt. Nemo’s environment, the opening match of the World Cup at Enchanté in Senglea, with a great setting and pizza to match.

You’ll have noticed, while on the subject of the World Cup, how the English Plan is going to perfection (I’m writing this before the Uruguay game, of course Italy were allowed to win, thereby being lulled into a false sense of security, with England poised to proceed to the final, there to meet them again and give them the whipping they sorely deserve.

On Wednesday, it being the female ancestor’s birthday, we went for a very enjoyable lunch at Chez Philippe in Gżira – I should have left out the ‘‘at’’, since in French “chez” means “at the home of...” but I’m writing in English, not French. The place was full of medical types who clearly believe in the “do as I say, not as I do” forma mentis that should guide all of us, but it was a good lunch nonetheless.

Lunch on Sunday was partaken of at Il-Kartell, in Marsalforn, where standards have been kept, thankfully. I know it sounds as if this week we’ve been eating out all the time, which is not the case, it just happened that way. If you want a quick, healthy, snack in the St Julian’s area, the Sushi Conveyor, also known as Sako (same premises as Wagamama) is great fun and your fate is in your own hands, no-one is trying to make you eat more than is good for you.

On Wednesday, the editorial from this fine specimen of journalistic endeavour (why would the editor take out this praise, come on?) echoed, and quite rightly, a number of my thoughts from last Saturday.

The role of the press in a free democracy (as opposed to a People’s Democracy or, worse, a Socialist People’s Democratic Republic) is set in stone and as fundamental a protection of our rights as the separation of powers and the rule of law.

No one has the right to try to stop the question being asked or the news item being carried

Lord Judge was quoted, and his words deserve reprising (I almost wrote “reprieving”) as saying “Ideas and information may be imparted without interference by public authority, unless limitations are imposed for identified specific policy reasons. None of those reasons for limiting the imparting of information ever extends to information with which the government or authorities of the day, or indeed a large body of citizens, may disagree or view with distaste”.

In other words, just because some grand high panjandrum doesn’t like a question, or a news item, or whatever, this doesn’t mean that anyone, least of all the GHP or one of his sweaty minions, has the right to try to stop the question being asked or the news item being carried.

Consequently, Parliamentary Secretary Roderick Galdes, whose defence of animal “rights” (animals don’t have rights per se, it’s us humans who have the obligation to treat them humanely) has been marked by – how should one put it charitably? – a certain level of absolute discretion, has no right to expect that the Times should err on the side of niceness when dealing with stories that might involve him.

Quite apart from anything else, a government, and, consequently, one of its parliamentary secretaries, that is rapidly characterising itself as a defender of hunters and of their right to blast things out of the sky, can hardly expect to have itself portrayed in a positive way.

With some serendipity, while I was writing this and watching Holland vs Australia out of the corner of my eye, the fact that Minister Joe Mizzi has lost a libel case was reported on the portal.

This particular individual has such a tendency to pontificate on Parliament being the highest institution of the land, which it is not, it is one of three, four if you include the press, high institutions that shore up the edifice of citizens’ rights (our politicians, bless ’em, sometimes get this the wrong way round) that when he is contraried I tend to sit up and take notice.

The magistrate presiding over the libel case made a very valid point in his judgment: “it is clear from the court’s case-law that the right to freedom of expression is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”.

One wonders whether he’d read the Times’ editorial and paraphrased Judge Judge’s rather apt dictum, but the judgment would have been written before the editorial saw daylight, therefore, it is more likely that the magistrate had done some deeper research than glancing at the paper of a morning.

The point, as made by Judge Judge or Magistrate Francesco Depasquale, stands: information, whether in the form of news or in the form of validly and correctly imparted opinion, brooks no interference simply because someone, a Cabinet minister, some bishop or other, a vested-interest group or whoever, does not like it or finds it irritating.

This does not give carte blanche to the spreading of lies, of course.

Certain sectors of the media, and here you can include Facebookers and Tweeters who spread their spite like it’s going out of fashion, seem to confuse having their right to have an opinion and broadcast it with the arrogance that leads them to write what they like and expect to be protected.

You can think my general behaviour, for instance, is despicable and larcenous, but you cannot actually just call me corrupt unless you have good evidence (that will stand up in a court of law) to back up your assertion of that fact.

This is why, surprise, surprise, anyone who has done ‘Journalism 101’ will have had drummed into his or her head the aphorism that “opinions are free, but facts are sacred”.

Anyone who doesn’t apply this on a daily, or bi-weekly (in the case of one particular media house) basis is not fit to be called a journalist. This has never deterred people from having an opinion and allowing it to masquerade as fact, sadly.

Just a reminder: restaurant recommendations are at the beginning of the piece, this week.

imbocca@gmail.com

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/author/20

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.