Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1476751
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 21 AUGUST 2022 OPINION 10 Raphael Vassallo OPINION How can online porn be 'bad'… when Malta is making so much money out of it? BUT first, a few words about 'the presumption of inno- cence': a fundamental human right, and a critically important pillar of any self-respecting de- mocracy's entire judicial sys- tem. Having said that, though: from the perspective of any journalist, wanting to write about any ongoing criminal case… it can also be a down- right pain in the arse. For one thing, you have to keep repeating words like 'al- legedly', over and over again; which can get a little tiring after a while (especially if, like me, you've never evolved be- yond your 'two-finger typing' stage). But for another, the princi- ple itself is so very widely mis- understood here, that most journalists end up ignoring it altogether – with potentially cataclysmic consequences, for the cases they write about. For instance: when the law- courts issued a media-ban (in December 2020) on 'presum- ing Yorgen Fenech's guilt', in the ongoing Daphne Caruana Galizia murder trial… a fair number of media outlets (and bloggers, and satirists, etc.) decided to not merely 'ignore' it; but in some cases, to openly 'defy' it, too. Oddly enough, however, some of those same bloggers and journalists are now speculating about the possibility that Yor- gen Fenech might eventually be… that's right, you guessed it: 'acquitted on a technicality'. Hmmm. What sort of 'tech- nicality' do they have in mind, I wonder? Might it, by any chance, have anything to do with the fact that a sizeable chunk of Malta's media land- scape – themselves included – simply defecated on the sus- pect's 'presumption of inno- cence', for almost five whole years? And that if (or should I say, when) Yorgen Fenech's lawyers take the matter up to the Eu- ropean Court of Human Rights – assuming, of course, that they first exhaust all their oth- er legal options here in Mal- ta – the judges in Strasbourg might take a completely differ- ent (and impartial) view of the same situation… … only to conclude that: yes, actually. At least one of this man's fundamental human rights was indeed violated, re- peatedly, by certain sections of the Maltese press. And not only that: but the same human rights violation can also be seen to have persisted… even AFTER the law-courts had is- sued a clear and unequivocal order, for it to stop. Well: I, for one, can easily im- agine how the European Court of Human Rights might take a rather dim view of that sort of thing, you know. Because no matter how 'self-evident' Yorgen Fenech's guilt may ap- pear, on paper; and no matter how much evidence the pros- ecution submits, to secure a conviction… he still remains a 'human being', at the end of the day (and guess what? It is a status that he will continue to enjoy, even if he IS eventually found guilty). As such, you cannot light- ly trample all over Yorgen Fenech's – or any other human being's – fundamental human rights… and expect that there will be no consequences what- soever. And if there's one con- sequence we can all certainly expect, in a case like this: it's that his defence team will liter- ally clutch at any straw imagi- nable, if it can possibly be used to avert an otherwise (let's face it) rather 'probable' conviction. What better way, then, to provide precisely the sort of 'technicality' that might ac- tually get Yorgen Fenech ac- quitted… than by throwing his defence team the equivalent of a last-minute lifeline? (And in the form of a human rights vio- lation, if you please…) Yes, indeed. There is, I would say, more than just the 'pos- sibility' that Yorgen Fenech might one day get off scot-free, on the basis of precisely that sort of 'technicality'. And… um… whose fault would it be, anyway, if that does really hap- pen? I just thought I'd ask, because such misconceptions are by no means limited to the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder tri- al. As you might have guessed from the headline, I had in mind to write about another case today… that of Fr Luke Seguna: charged with (among other things) 'embezzlement and money-laundering', in a case that has dominated local headlines for the past week. Now – because the 'presump- tion of innocence' is still such a pain in the arse – here, I feel compelled to make a few dis- claimers. 1) I myself have no opinion re- garding Fr Luke Seguna's 'guilt or innocence' in this case. (And quite frankly, I'm not even all that interested, either way). 2) This article is only con- cerned with the nature of the crimes for which he has been charged… and as such, it has no real bearing on the question of whether he actually commit- ted any of them, or not. Right. With that out of the way: let's take another look at the charge-sheet, shall we? 'Embezzlement'; 'fraud'; 'fal- sification of documents'; and 'money laundering'. But – as I suspected all along – there is not a single word about using that money (or parts thereof) to pay for any 'online porn ser- vices'… and even less, to 'buy himself a few expensive mo- tor-bikes'. And this is hardly surprising, for two (rather obvious) rea- sons: 1) Because – contrary to yet another widespread miscon- ception – neither 'watching online porn', nor 'buying ex- pensive automobiles', is ac- tually illegal in this country [unless, of course, we are talk- ing about child pornography… which doesn't seem to be the case, here]. 2) Because – with the ex- ception of 'money laundering' (more of which later) – not a single one of those charges has anything whatsoever to do with 'what Fr Seguna actual- ly did, with all the money he (allegedly) embezzled'. On the contrary: the crimes he stands accused of are concerned with 'how that money was AC- QUIRED'… and NOT 'how it was spent'. And yet, most newspapers this week (including this one) ran with headlines which suggest- ed – however remotely – that Fr Seguna's presumed crimes really DO include 'watching online porn'. We were told, for instance, that he (alleged- ly) "'misappropriated' tens of thousands on porn sites"… and that 'Donations [were] alleged- ly spent on live sex shows'… … for all the world as though it was actually the 'porn sites', and the 'live sex shows', that had landed Fr Seguna in court to begin with (as opposed to the real – and much more se- rious – crimes for which he is actually on trial). I don't know. Something, somewhere, feels 'wrong' to me, in all this. Not just because these details are actually quite irrelevant, to the case at hand (in the sense that they do not make Fr Seguna any more, or less, 'guilty' of the crimes with which he is actually charged); but also because they DO make him appear instantly 'guilty' – in the eyes of the court of public opinion, at any rate – of crimes for which he HASN'T been ac- cused (and which do not even really qualify as 'crimes', in the first place). At the same time, however: does any of this really impinge on Fr Seguna's fundamental human right to be 'presumed innocent, until proven guilty'? It's hard to say, to be honest. For even if I feel that some of the media reporting may have been 'unfair'… the fact remains that the prosecution really DID submit all those details, in open court (and unlike the case with Yorgen Fenech.... the magis- trate stopped short of issuing any ban on media publication.) And besides: there IS at least