It is not so much a metamorphosis; but rather a rapid transformation: of the Labour Party which was saying all the right things to get elected to the one that is now in government and doing something different.
The latest comes from Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia. When asked by The Times about criminal libel, he said: “While some aspects of the law are considered draconian, it is also worth considering the provisions of the law from the angle of the people being reported upon...
“The pen is a powerful weapon, and abuse of a position of power cannot ever be treated lightly. Other professions, such as medical doctors, are held criminally liable in cases of negligence where human life is at stake. Journalists also enjoy a hold over people’s lives and it is therefore... the professional execution of their duties that is the best protection for them and other citizens too.”
His comments were made in the context of his refusal to withdraw a criminal libel case against Paul Borg Olivier regarding comments made during the electoral campaign, though he did take a step back from the ludicrous remark (and worrying one given the portfolio he is now entrusted with) that he would seek imprisonment for the Nationalist general secretary.
The pen, or keyboard, is indeed a potentially powerful weapon. We would be the first to argue that it should be used responsibility, and the first to admit that there are occasions when it is not.
This phenomenon has become worse, rather than better, due to the growing prevalence of the internet in the media landscape.
There are various reasons for this; one, the checks and standards that form part and parcel of print medium production are often not applied online. But perhaps more pertinently, anyone is able to voice an opinion online and an increasing number of people do so without either checking their facts or taking the time to form an informed opinion.
However, if anyone has a hold on people’s lives, it is politicians, not journalists. The latter seek to shape opinion through their respective media, while the former make the laws by which we must abide.
And the keyboard is not the only powerful weapon. The voice is too. Under our law politicians in Parliament enjoy absolute immunity in whatever they choose to say about a given situation or individual. There is a growing tendency for journalists, on the other hand, to be treated like common criminals in what is quite often the legitimate pursuit of their job.
Criminal penalty for libel is not just draconian but – as practically every EU country has now realised, even Italy which along with Malta is practically the only member left to entertain the idea – it is an affront to free speech, especially when the potentially crippling option of civil libel proceedings is available.
But, as persuasive as that may be, it is not the only reason why Dr Mallia’s rather authoritarian words jar. They are all the more unpalatable because they contradict a statement made by Joseph Muscat in The Big Debate organised by The Times a little over a month ago.
Dr Muscat had said emphatically that he agrees criminal libel should be removed from the statute books, adding that civil libel law would need to be reformed as part of the process.
We are in agreement with the Prime Minister. His Home Affairs Minister, it appears, is not.