Words, and their meaning, have experienced a disconnect under Joseph Muscat's Labour government that is awe inspiring. 

Leave aside our Foreign Minister's concept of the meaning of the words "calm", "stable" and "evacuation" in the context of Libya.  Ignore, for the moment, the way the concept of "culture" has been turned into a joke by the V-18 people (childish cartoon murals, anyone?)   

Forget all that, and consider the Data Protection Commissioner's recent interpretation of the words that should bound his official existence.

The doughty occupant of this office has interpreted the wording of the Data Protection Act to mean that a link on a website (one dedicated to the upholding of the law and the prevention of cruelty to animals, mark you) should result in prosecution under the Act. Clips of hunters filmed killing birds have raised the ire of the DPC, to the extent that he has chosen to prosecute Birdlife Malta because they have linked to the site where the clips may be seen.  

It is not within the remit of the DPC to prosecute the breach of the law by the hunters, if any such breach took place, so you can't blame him for not doing that little thing.  Obviously not.

But for the DPC to classify Birdlife as a "data controller" simply because in public it linked to clips shot in public of people doing things in public that many members of the public have stated in public that they find reprehensible, and prosecute Birdlife on this basis, is Kafkaesque in the extreme.

Does the DPC get the concept of things being done in public and in the public interest?   

This very portal, recently, carried a clip of a motor-vehicle accident, which happened in public, and opted to carry a video of the aftermath, with one of the participants being interviewed with only his head in a public space.  The story annoyed a few people, from the comments I saw in various media, maybe in the same way the hunters' clips annoyed some people.

Does the DPC think that the Times should be prosecuted with the full weight of his majestic office for that?  I think not, but he does seem to think that Birdlife Malta should be prosecuted that way, after all, they dared annoy hunters, shame on them.

Hounding individuals and exposing their personal affairs to the world, especially if they happen to be critical of the Labour Party or its fellow travellers, is an activity that has been carried out for years.   Hunters' rights - if an oxymoron such as this should even be allowed to see light - have been elevated to a pedestal of late, with Parliamentary Secretariats being rendered Orwellian to accommodate their every desire (work it out)

You can hardly blame the DPC, then. Dr Michael Zammit Maempel, a gentleman learned in data protection law, was politely scornful, in print and on this portal, of the Data Protection Commissioner's exercise of his powers.

Dr Zammit Maempel was being diplomatic, I can be less so. The Data Protection Commissioner should take a good, long, look at the way he has made himself and his Office appear to be nothing more or less than ludicrous, the long straight arm of the law perverted into a crooked claw lashing out at the enemies of the State's friends.

And after taking this look, he should consider his position, in the widest sense of the phrase.