Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544097
WHAT we are experiencing today with the "manosphere" among our youth should concern us all. It is not simply another so‑ cial media trend, but a signal of something deeper that is missing in our society. This goes beyond misogyny. It reflects young males growing up confused, searching for identity, direction, and a sense of belong‑ ing. Instead of guidance, they are finding anger. Instead of respect, they are being taught dominance. Instead of balance, they are fed division. A more troubling reality is that much of this content is not ac‑ tively sought out. It reaches them through algorithms, short‑form videos, and messaging that grad‑ ually reshapes how they think, how they speak, and how they see others. In a society like ours, where cer‑ tain attitudes have long existed beneath the surface, this influ‑ ence does not remain online. It grows, it spreads, and over time becomes normalised. Honesty is required about where this is com‑ ing from. These narratives do not emerge in a vacuum, but are shaped by a patriarchal society that continues to influence how young males understand power, emotion, and identity, often rewarding dom‑ inance while leaving little room for vulnerability or balance. Clearly, this culture is produc‑ ing dangerous offenders and enabling a damaging attitude of victim‑blaming, where victims are often judged more harshly than those who harm them. Vic‑ tims deserve real protection, not bureaucracy. That is why I have called for reforms to make Mal‑ ta's sex offenders register more accessible so that parents, guard‑ ians, carers and other concerned citizens can legitimately seek in‑ formation about someone who may pose a risk to children or vulnerable people without having to go through costly and lengthy court procedures. Drawing on models such as the United Kingdom's Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, these measures are meant to prevent future harm, empower communities to act responsibly when they have reason to be con‑ cerned, and send a clear message that harmful behaviour will not be obscured or tolerated. An uncomfortable truth must also be faced. These young males are not the problem. They are a reflection of what is lacking with‑ in society. A lack of positive role models. A lack of honest, nu‑ anced conversations about what healthy masculinity looks like. A lack of spaces where young males can speak, question, and be heard without judgement. Unlearning these deeply root‑ ed mindsets is challenging. It requires time, consistency, and a willingness to question what has long been accepted as nor‑ mal. Change, however, remains entirely possible when that effort is made. Failure to step in leaves space for others to take that role. The consequences of that are al‑ ready visible. This moment calls for listening, for guidance, and for responsibil‑ ity. The issue extends beyond the internet. It speaks directly to the kind of future being shaped. Our responsibility is clear: To ensure the next generation grows up with values that build rather than break, that respect rather than divide, and that bring people together rather than pull them apart. In a judgment delivered on 25 March 2026, Magistrate Joseph Gatt reaffirmed the principle that a revision of rent must be based on the property's current market valuation and not its de‑ velopment potential. The court also affirmed that any revision in previously controlled rents should be close to the statutory maximum of 2% unless excep‑ tional circumstances are prov‑ en. The judgement was related to a controlled residential lease governed by Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta. It concerned the procedure introduced in 2021 that allows landlords to request a revision of rent and the impo‑ sition of new lease conditions subject to a means test of the tenant. The property in question was leased in 1969 at a very low rent, and after the expiration of the original lease in 1985, the ten‑ ant remained protected as a re‑ sult of rent control legislation. The landlords argued the rent remained disproportionately low and violated their property rights. In an application before the Rent Regulation Board the land‑ lords requested: Confirmation that the respondent was a tenant under Chapter 69; a means test of the tenant; revision of rent up to 2% of the open market value; and payment of the revised rent. The tenant argued that she had resided in the premises for many years and had succeeded to the tenancy from her father in terms of the provisions reg‑ ulating protected tenancies un‑ der Chapter 69. She maintained that rent had always been paid regularly and the landlords had never previously complained. The tenant further submitted that she satisfied the means test established at law and therefore remained entitled to the protec‑ tion of the law. She also argued that, if the board were to revise the rent, such revision should only become payable from the date of the decision and not ret‑ roactively. The board explained that Act 24 of 2021 introduced a mech‑ anism for the revision of rent in protected leases, similar to the procedure previously applicable under Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta. This legislation was enacted following several con‑ stitutional judgments in which Maltese courts found that the controlled rent regimes im‑ posed a disproportionate bur‑ den on landlords and violated their property rights. The board emphasised that, although it had discretion in determining the percentage of rent to be applied, such percentage should normal‑ ly be close to the statutory max‑ imum 2% of the market value, unless exceptional circumstanc‑ es are proven. This approach reflects the constitutional prin‑ ciple of proportionality and the need to maintain a fair balance between the social protection of tenants and the property rights of landlords. The board concluded that the tenant satisfied the means test requirements and therefore re‑ mained entitled to the protec‑ tion afforded by law. The board then relied on a court‑appoint‑ ed expert valuation which es‑ tablished the open market value of the property at €360,0000. Importantly, the board reiter‑ ated the principle established in recent constitutional juris‑ prudence that the development potential of the property is ir‑ relevant for the purposes of rent revision. Although the law grants the board discretion to apply a per‑ centage not exceeding 2% of the open market value, it em‑ phasised that such percentage should normally be close to the statutory maximum unless exceptional circumstances are proven. The board reasoned that fixing a low percentage could perpetuate the disproportion‑ ate burden previously imposed on landlords under controlled rent legislation and could there‑ fore result in a continuation of the violation of property rights identified in constitutional ju‑ risprudence. Therefore, the board applied the maximum percentage of 2%, resulting in an annual rent of €7,200, equiva‑ lent to €600 per month, payable from the date of the judgment. The overall effect of the judg‑ ment was to maintain the pro‑ tected tenancy while substan‑ tially increasing the rent in order to restore proportionality between the parties' respective rights. 8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 29 MARCH 2026 OPINION & LAW Rent increase should be calculated on property's actual value not its speculative value MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Rosianne Cutajar Labour MP Protect, guide, empower: Ending victim- blaming and dangerous patterns To ensure the next generation grows up with values that build rather than break, that respect rather than divide, and that bring people together rather than pull them apart