With the coming of the British to Malta, one step towards freedom of expression was the disappearance of the inquisitor who had for centuries kept a watchful eye on any unorthodox expression of ideas.

The Royal Commission, made up of Sir George Cornwall Lewis and John Austin, came to Malta in 1836 to enquire into the affairs of the island.

Mr Austin wrote to his father, Sir Charles Austin, about the prospect of re-establishing freedom of the press on the island - one of the main subjects of the enquiry.

The number of Italian refugees was so great that Mr Austin said they would report in favour of freedom of the press but would recommend strict regulations in the way of punishment for libel on private character and on foreign states insomuch as the latter would retaliate and vex Maltese trade.

The Colonial Office had even been against including in the Constitution of 1921 a clause which stated that the religion of Malta was Roman Catholicism. For the Colonial Office, this would imply the dominance of the religion and was, as the Colonial Secretary implied, out of place in a constitution. Such a provision, he added, could be passed by an Act of the legislature which had complete control of religion.

An example of how certain laws passed in Parliament can be used to restrict political opponents in a democracy was the so-called 'Blasphemy Bill', which was introduced in the Maltese legislature in November 1932. The bill provided for the punishment of offences against religious sentiment.

The British authorities strongly objected to the Bill as, according to the Foreign Office, it was a political move designed to protect from criticism the numerous Catholic priests who took an active part in Maltese politics. Moreover, it would provide for discrimination between the Roman Catholics and other religions tolerated by the state in that offences against the latter were to be punished less than offences against the former.

This is the real danger of censorship. With the pretext of offending religion or morals it can be used by those in power to oppose political adversaries - an abject way for them to keep their power.

When it comes then to artistic expression, censorship is akin to killing the soul of a nation. Artists and citizens alike should be responsible enough not to break the law. If they do, the state has all the means to apply its laws.

Nobody, however, has the right to ban freedom of speech, even when those in power do not agree with the ideas expressed.