One need not read between the lines to understand what Deborah Schembri, the Parliamentary Secretary for Planning and Simplification of Administrative Processes and a lawyer by profession, was after in her Talking Point titled ‘Private lives and public interest’ (February 11). She certainly lived to her political role of simplifying matters: if journalists do not get off politicians’ back then the legislator will ensure it will be done. For many freedom-loving people that is repression.

“The time is ripe for this country to enter into a serious discussion about this matter. Laws should also be enacted to safeguard politicians from uncalled for intrusions into their private and sexual lives. Much of what is written about politicians is meant to catch the attention of the masses or provide for their distraction from important issues, providing fodder for the eight o’clock news. But there’s much at stake and realising quickly and doing something about it is very much in the public interest,” Dr Schembri wrote.

What her Cabinet colleague, Chris Cardona, did last week – demanding a precautionary garnishee order against a blogger – was a direct challenge to the right of freedom of expression. Her ‘suggestion’ is diabolical, taking back the country to the days when the government and Cabinet ministers made themselves untouchable and anything that did not please them was deemed to be ‘against the public interest’ and ‘perpetrators’ treated as ‘enemies of the people’.

Dr Schembri is calling for legal provisions protecting politicians from “uncalled for intrusions into their private and sexual lives”. The law already provides for that and both domestic and international courts, particularly the European Court of Human Rights, have often dealt with the matter. What she is advocating is diametrically opposed to prevailing legal doctrine and case law.

In Ligens vs Austria, the European Court of Human Rights stated that “the limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual. Unlike the latter, the former inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists and the public at large and he must consequently display a greater degree of tolerance. No doubt, Article 10 para. 2 (art 10-2) [of the European Convention of Human Rights] enables the reputation of others – that is to say, of all individuals – to be protected, and this protection extends to politicians too, even when they are not acting in their private capacity; but in such cases the requirements of such protection have to be weighed in relation to the interests of open discussion of political issues.”

In Delphi AS vs Estonia, it notes that freedom of expression is not only applicable to “‘information’ and ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no ‘democratic society’”.

Dr Schembri also brings into the equation the matter of public interest, again a matter that both domestic and international courts have often raised. It is, of course, up to the court and not to politicians to decide.

A final, crucial point is standards in public life. Dr Schembri and those arguing like her need to realise that the people’s representatives should be of the highest standards possible, in all aspects. Only the most upright deserve the people’s trust. And those that err must pay for their mistakes.

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.