The memorial to Daphne Caruana Galizia, which was spontaneously set up at the foot of the Great Siege monument commemorating the fallen Maltese dead 450 years ago, has been cleared away several times since it was first informally established after her murder almost a year ago.
The latest clear-up occurred some 10 days ago when the Minister for Justice and Culture announced the monument was to be restored and safety hoarding was immediately erected to enable the work to proceed.
“Activists” returned to the site in the course of the following weekend to mark the 11th month of Caruana Galizia’s death, putting up a banner and lighting candles at the foot of the hoarding, in effect re-establishing the makeshift memorial. This was removed in short order by members of the public cleansing department (insultingly referred to as “garbage cleaners” by offended activists).
An activist and journalist, Manuel Delia, has now resorted to legal action, seeking an injunction against the minister to stop him from removing the memorial on the grounds that to do so “trampled on his freedom of expression”.
It is for the courts to weigh the argument on grounds of the right to free expression against the authorities’ declared need to carry out restoration work on a national monument unencumbered by extraneous interference on the work site.
What should happen now? The case for a memorial to DCG is genuine. Many of us remember the reaction to the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Thousands of people bought flowers and laid them as close as possible to any building with which she had been associated and formed impromptu shrines.
Diana’s death was tragic, as any sudden death in the prime of life is tragic. It was a genuine expression of popular emotion. What we have seen with the flowers and candles laid in memory of Caruana Galizia at the Great Siege monument is little different, except in two major respects.
First, in the emotions engendered. Diana, was loved nationally, while Daphne was admired by some, but disliked or hated by others. Secondly, once Princess Diana’s State funeral was over, the impromptu memorials were quietly removed and the public spaces at Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace and elsewhere were cleared up. The makeshift memorials were followed subsequently by permanent monuments: gardens, playgrounds, walks and a memorial fountain in Kensington Gardens.
In Caruana Galizia’s case, it is what happens next that needs careful consideration. Should there be a permanent memorial to her? To answer that question is to invite the most politically partisan response, but there are many, I suspect, who would like one to be placed somewhere in commemoration. Their views should be heard.
The reaction to Caruana Galizia’s brutal murder and the grief it aroused among many is not to be denied or underestimated. She was a brave investigative journalist, as well as a divisive commentator on the Maltese social and political scene.
The reaction to Caruana Galizia’s brutal murder and the grief it aroused among many is not to be denied or underestimated
Even if one did not like her politics, her belief – and ours, too, I hope – in freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, the liberty to express our concerns, the freedom to worship who we want, or not to worship at all – values which go to the heart of Western democratic standards – are worthy of a memorial.
Caruana Galizia was wrong on many things, but her commitment to freedom of speech and her fearlessness in promoting it were the utterly redeeming features of her life. These are the aspects of her life, which those who genuinely grieve for her think deserve a memorial. They should not be decried.
The question now, therefore, is threefold. Is there a case for a publicly-funded memorial? If not, is there sufficient support by people prepared to fund privately a permanent memorial to Caruana Galizia? If so, where should it be placed?
On the first issue, there is a strong argument for saying that the first journalist to be slain in Malta deserves to be remembered by a public memorial. But I very much doubt that this would receive the necessary cross-party political support, or even sufficient public support. Indeed, a public memorial would simply inflame the already toxic mood generated by this issue in Malta.
It is useful to recall that a few months ago, a plan to erect a statue in London’s Parliament Square to Margaret Thatcher – probably Britain’s greatest post-war Prime Minister – was rejected on a number of grounds. But at its heart, it was because Thatcher was an immensely divisive figure in British politics and still hated by many. Similar arguments apply here. A public memorial to DCG is probably not therefore a viable proposition.
There are many activists who support the ad hoc memorial at the Great Siege monument merely as a political front to niggle and provoke the government. But the crux is whether there are people who would be prepared to muster the private support and the funding for a memorial to Caruana Galizia. The answer to that is almost certainly yes – possibly even a loud yes.
The case for a memorial to Caruana Galizia is understandable. Like Princess Diana’s, her death was shocking.
It evoked a natural and genuine feeling of horror in the majority of right-thinking people in Malta – even those who had little time for her politics or her vindictive writings.
The only question, therefore, is where it should be placed and what form it should take. To place it anywhere prominent in Valletta would be to invite vandalism, defacement and to mark it out as a target of protest. It may perhaps be appropriate to place it in Sliema where she was born, or Bidnija, where she met her tragic and untimely death. It is for the sponsors of the memorial to decide.
As the first anniversary of Caruana Galizia’s death beckons, it is time for those who genuinely feel that she should have a memorial to stop playing cat-and-mouse political games at the Great Siege monument and instead to get on with launching an appeal and embarking on the hard graft of designing it and identifying a suitable place to erect it.
Not to do so would undermine the credibility, intentions and commitment of those who have supported an ad hoc memorial over the last year.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece