Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1060184
18 maltatoday EXECUTIVE EDITOR Matthew Vella MANAGING EDITOR Saviour Balzan Letters to the Editor, MaltaToday, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 E-mail: dailynews@mediatoday.com.mt Letters must be concise, no pen names accepted, include full name and address maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 DECEMBER 2018 7 December 2008 Seabank Hotel originally proposed new Ghadira road JAMES DEBONO A hotelier's proposal to build a road and a tun- nel passing behind the Ghadira nature reserve in Mellieha could well be the source of much controversy today. The study, commissioned in 2004 by Silvio Debono, owner of the Seabank Hotel, was the first to propose diverting Mellieha's main thoroughfare behind the hotel and through the garigue – which minus the tunnel, could well be exactly what Transport Minister Austin Gatt now intends to do. But more significantly, ten years ago Debono offered to pay for re-routing the Ghadira road passing in front of the hotel, in return for 33% of the replenished Mellieha beach. In 1998 he applied for a re-direction of the road, to construct a promenade and enlarge the beach at his own expense. In return, he ex- pected a third of the beach in the form of a con- cession. "When I saw I was heading nowhere, I dropped it," Debono tells MaltaToday in an interview today. Debono says his original proposal was to have a bridge constructed in front of the nature re- serve. His 2004 proposal, Debono says, cost him "a lot of money" to have a Regional Environ- ment Impact Assessment, the first of its kind, on having a tunnel run beneath the garigue's plateau behind the Danish Village, and a road passing behind the nature reserve. Debono claims that both Din l-Art Helwa and BirdLife expressed their agreement with the EIA consultants – ADI Associates – to have the road re-routed. Both organisations have rejected such claims. A letter sent by Din l-Art Helwa to ADI in Au- gust 2004 declares that the garigue area "should not be disturbed" and that the new road would disturb the garigue, adding that the "the full effect, including the tunnel parts, should be mapped and alternatives investigated before taking any decision." BirdLife director Tolga Temuge says there was only one face-to-face meeting with ADI over plans to enlarge the nature reserve. "When we were told a road would be passed behind the reserve, BirdLife President Joe Mangion made it clear we were against it." In their studies ADI claim the relocation of the road is essential because the Mellieha Bay area was exhibiting signs of severe environmen- tal degradation, with threats from sand nourish- ment, barbecues, mushrooming kiosks, and the "looting of sand for construction and paving." The study refers directly to the vertical sea wall next to the Tunny Net complex which altered the sea currents in the area. The existing road is also deemed to be af- fecting the sand budget, "starving the system [by] tampering with the flow of water and sediment." MaltaToday 10 years ago Quote of the Week Let's call misogyny by its name Editorial ''If I'm vociferous in my arguments it doesn't give you a right to call me a whore. Say you disagree with me, call me ignorant... but don't call me a whore.'' Labour MP Rosianne Cutajar MALTA is not known for its peaceful, non-con- frontational way of doing politics but we do seem to be going through a particularly hostile phase at the moment, even by our own traditional standards. Political confrontations seem to undeniably be taking place on increasingly more personal, and insulting, terrain. Labour MP Rosianne Cutajar, for instance, recently filed two libel suits over disparaging remarks about her on Facebook. Her anger at being labelled a 'whore' is en- tirely justified – even more so, when placed in the context of similar harassment going back to at least 2012, when she was first elected as mayor of Qormi, and thus came within the line of political fire. Cutajar is certainly not the only female MP or politician to face this sort of harassment; indeed, her argument when presenting those libel suits was that 'no woman' should have to endure such labelling at all. It is perhaps remarkable that someone even had to make such a self-evident point. Such language is clearly unacceptable, as it debases women in general; by implying that women cannot possibly succeed without 'male patron- age'. As such, it betrays a crude humiliation of all women, everywhere. Cutajar is also right to appeal for a more civil style of discussion. There can be no deny- ing that the language used by some on social media is anything but conducive to an in- formed and critical debate. Comments such as those flagged by Cutajar are intended to demean the person, rather than attack the argument. In this particular context, however, the situ- ation is made worse by the fact that the people who indulged in calling Cutajar a 'whore', were justifiably shocked and outraged when former GWU boss Tony Zarb described the women of 'Occupy Justice' using the same insult. The NGO issued a statement to condemn Zarb at the time, and his language was univer- sally condemned. Yet in this case, both libel suits are against comments posted by activists from the same group, or close to it. Why these two individuals chose to go down the same demeaning road that they had previ- ously condemned, is incomprehensible and hypocritical to say the least. And they have not been alone in taking this road. Rosianne Cutajar did well to call out the individuals and the language used. It is not something any woman should accept. But whether she should have filed for libel is another matter altogether. Here we are on legal terrain; and the law itself allows a wider margin of tolerance when criticism and of- fensive language is directed towards public figures. Cutajar herself intimated similar misgivings, in a previous interview with MaltaToday: "Today, I can say that I am thick-skinned enough to handle it," she said at the time (Au- gust 2018). "In fact I didn't even sue Daphne Caruana Galizia [over the original allegation]. But the problem is also that I felt at the time... let me put it this way: in Malta, the legal situ- ation concerning libel is such that even if you are 100% right, you still have to prove that you are right. I was always afraid – and bear in mind I was 22 or 23 at the time – that... what if she goes on to win the case, even if it's a lie? My political career would be over..." That she would meanwhile reconsider that position is understandable, given that the insults have only intensified since then. But as a politician and MP, Cutajar can ex- pect to receive offensive criticism more than any other ordinary individual. Local case history attests to this; as do sev- eral landmark judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, which define 'free- dom of expression' as also extending to the freedom to offend. Within this context it is questionable whether Cutajar should have gone down the legal road with her objections. Perhaps it is an indication of just how far the culture of verbal violence has deteriorated in recent years; but this is ultimately a ques- tion of cultural mindsets… and in the long term, addressing such issues requires more than legal action on individual cases. Cutajar is on firmer ground with her argu- ment that she was compelled to take legal action – they are the only two libel cases she has ever filed – to stand up not only for her dignity, but also that of other women who suf- fer in silence. It is a noble stand to take; but she would probably have been more effective directing her justified anger towards condemning dis- paraging remarks against women in all cir- cumstances, and from wherever they came. Such a stand would put her a cut above the hypocrites who indulge in calling others names, but who are outraged when the very same offence is directed towards them. Ultimately, however, what is needed is an effort to stamp out an increasingly worrying culture of verbal violence directed at women: not just in politics, but across the board. To this end, partisan politics would have to be put aside, for long enough to at least recog- nise what is acceptable, and unacceptable, in public discourse. Calling women 'whores' is clearly unaccep- table. Surely, on this we can all agree.