I write to exercise a right of reply to the piece ‘Farmers unite to allow access to Simblija’ (July 7). As a private person, I reject any attempt to a trial by the media and to any interference in my privacy and fundamental rights.
Since I engage myself voluntarily on uncovering abuse of power (with particular emphasis on agricultural matters and EU agricultural funds) as a journalist and I offered myself as witness to the authorities on such cases, I reject any attempts of harm to my reputation or credibility.
The journalist of the Times of Malta was all over the place, raising issues about me and my property that do not exist because my explanations were not sought before the publication of the said article.
Consequently, the article contains statements that are based on incomplete or totally false information. This is not the first time that a journalist of this newspaper failed to contact me and not the first time that false allegations about me or my family were published.
As with another article that appeared on June 22, the journalist ignored my explanations about my family’s farm property given in my previous rights of reply and a feature article in The Sunday Times in 2012, thereby publishing a mistaken description of the property which is also prejudicial to me and my family.
I deny the allegations about me, which this newspaper attribute to nameless persons, and which I believe refer to repeated acts of intimidation, provocations and legal issues of a civil nature consisting mainly of pretended rights which I dispute and which I have referred to legal authorities including the police and the courts, in terms of law, including via judicial letters.
The fields of the nameless individuals are closer to public roads than my family’s farm and, therefore, I cannot see how I am obstructing access to their fields. I add that the connections of some of those nameless people to local politicians, and to their agents in the Ta’ Baldu and is-Simblija cases, are well known to me.
The video seen by this newspaper’s journalist of my exchange with Alex Vella, who was heading a group of ramblers who intruded in my property on June 19, was taken against my clear instructions, which should be recorded on the video, and I regard the video as a provocation and a violation of the EU data protection directive. Moreover, the video, as portrayed, may imply an intended set-up to my prejudice.
It was falsely insinuated that property held by my family was misappropriation of public land
Either the journalist was not shown a video of the full exchange or the journalist was highly selective about its content.
In my exchange with Vella, I questioned him about what action he had taken as Mepa board member about my reports to the authorities concerning the conversion of the EU-funded Dingli Interpretation Centre to a restaurant contrary to Mepa permits.
The ramblers had falsely insinuated on this newspaper that property held by my family was misappropriation of public land and made baseless claims about EU funds spent on preventive maintenance on my family’s old farm. Also, in expressing my opinion about the Ramblers’ Association during my exchange with Vella, I immediately explained my opinion, which should therefore also be on video, but which was not reproduced by the journalist, who gave instead the impression that I resorted to insults.
With respect to signs on property, Legal Notice 171 of 1993 allows legal owners of property to install signs on their property, within certain parameters, without permits. Conversely, signage on privately-held property requires the consent of its legal owner, under the same LN. Therefore, rather than questioning the removal of information panels and other signs on property lawfully held by my family, I suggest the journalist should ask about who installed those signs, with what legal consent and about who converted the scope of preventive maintenance works as set out in a planning authority permit into a project of a presumed public attraction. On February 20, 2013, I had written to the planning authority on this issue and, on April 11, 2013, three officers visited my property and found the situation returned to legality. Vella was already on the Mepa board at the time.
The claim in the newspaper report about public pathways on the is-Simblija farm holding is totally false and I had denied it before.
My family holds contracts of title, maps and documents, many of which are publicly available and which corroborate each other and which clearly show the legal rights and pertinences of the property and which prove this point. Since its first documentation, is-Simblija has been a privately held agricultural farm property in terms of law, like the surrounding farm estates, collectively making an agricultural landscape to be protected and, like other farm holdings further away, including medieval Diar il-Bniet (Dingli) and medieval Tad-Daħla (Santa Katerina), all of which are highly documented from the past.
It is public paths around this property, shown on old documents, which have been closed off abusively. Yet, despite this fact being brought to the attention of the Times of Malta, nothing was published.
Editorial note:
Mr Ciantar was contacted about a previous article dealing with the same subject.