Charles Dickens was really not understating his case when he made one of his characters declare that the law is an ass. Consider this; Maltese law forbids a DJ/musician/entertainer from taking part in an event if he has been found guilty of a minor drug offence (please note the focus on ‘minor’, which includes possession for personal use).

This is on the basis that he might be of bad influence to the event-goers, encouraging them to likewise indulge in drugs. Because, of course, that makes perfect sense. Anyone participating in entertainment events is, in fact, asked to provide a copy of their ID card to the police so they can cross-check any criminal record.

You can read about incidents when this happened, such as Earth Garden and the Sliema Arts Festival, here.

This would all be fine and dandy, except that it appears that sex offenders are not subject to the same scrutiny as those who are found with a joint in their possession.

Yup. Sex offenders are free to organise any number of orgies (sorry), because the law is not interested in the damage event-goers may suffer in this case. Or, to put it in more acceptable legalese, because "there is a loophole".

Which is why Joel Caruana organised a Girls Invasion party in Paceville, the very name of which would be perfectly hilarious if it were not for the fact that Mr Caruana received two suspended sentences for sexual acts with minors and is even now being investigated for new, related offences.

You can read all about it here.

This little detail changes Mr Caruana's party from a simple exercise in bad taste and ridiculous promos into something that might require more investigation. But even without taking into account new investigations, the question begs itself: why was Mr Caruana allowed to brush his criminal record under the carpet and continue organising events while others – whose infraction of the law was on an arguably much more harmless and minor scale – continue paying the penalty for the rest of their lives?

You might argue that Mr Caruana has already paid his dues to society on proven offences and should not now be stopped from leading a normal life. That may as well be, but where does that leave all the others who also paid their debt to society but were nonetheless refused an event permit? Don’t they deserve the same rights?

How come Mr Caruana was allowed to get away with it but countless others are not? Is it a case of in Paceville anything goes, but when it’s a privately-organised festival you have to leap through hoops to get a permit?

Is it because someone, somewhere, decided that using drugs is a more serious crime than sexually engaging with a minor?

It is all very well to tell us that there is 'a loophole in the law'. We find it far too easy to throw the word about as though it excuses any amount of cock ups. It doesn't. Why is the loophole there in the first place, when - in other cases - someone made doubly and triply sure that no such loopholes existed? And why hasn't it been plugged yet? 

I’m sure that a smidgen of common sense still lurks somewhere, buried under the dusty files of some long-forgotten official department. Can someone from the police headquarters reassure us all that the playing-field will be levelled?

Otherwise, we can’t help but wonder what the real deal is when DJs are refused a police permit to play at an event, because they once got caught smoking a joint while sex offenders get away with it because of 'a loophole'.