Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544723
10 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 3 MAY 2026 OPINION EUROPE'S reputation as a global sanctuary for the press masks a deteriorating internal reality. The murders of Daph- ne Caruana Galizia, Peter R. de Vries, and Ján Kuciak and his fiancée demonstrate that these are not tragic outliers, but indi- cators of an escalating vulner- ability. Press freedom on the continent faces unprecedented and sustained pressure. These attacks are not just at- tacks on individuals. They are attacks on the very core of the democratic order. Journalists expose corruption, organised crime and abuses of power and that is precisely why they be- come targets. When journalists are intimidated, sued or killed, the message is clear—the truth becomes dangerous. Murder is the most extreme act, but repression rarely be- gins with violence. It starts with silence—subtle pressures, legal manipulation and attempts at discreditation. That is precise- ly why political responsibility must not be merely declarato- ry, but concrete and decisive. The EPP Group acts with this awareness. By adopting the Anti-SLAPP Directive, we have sent a clear message that the le- gal system must not be used as a tool to silence critical voices. Those who abuse the courts to stifle the public interest must face consequences. There is no place in a democracy for in- timidating those who speak the truth. At the same time, the Eu- ropean Media Freedom Act represents a key step towards strengthening the resilience of our democratic system. It pro- tects editorial independence, ensures greater transparency and reinforces pluralism. Free and independent media are not a luxury—they are a corner- stone of a functioning democ- racy. On World Press Freedom Day, we must not settle for commemoration. The real question is: Are journalists safe today? Can they work without fear, political pressure, or eco- nomic coercion? If the answer is no, then our fight is not over. Although years have passed since Daphne's assassination, the Maltese Government's re- cord on media freedom con- tinues to be defined by delay, obstruction, and spin. The lim- ited reforms introduced in re- cent years have come largely in response to sustained Europe- an pressure not from Castille's own initiative. Journalists today enjoy some- what stronger protection from SLAPP suits because of per- sistent domestic campaigning and international scrutiny, not because the government final- ly accepted its responsibility to safeguard press freedom. The alleged mastermind be- hind Daphne Caruana Galizia's murder has yet to be brought to justice, and several key rec- ommendations of the public inquiry into her assassination repeatedly highlighted by the European Parliament remain unimplemented. Media freedom is fragile even in democracies. It depends on political will, legislation and the societal values we shape every day. That is why it is our duty to clearly and decisively defend those who defend the truth. Today, we pay tribute to those who have lost their lives in this fight. Their courage obliges us. Because when the truth be- comes a target, silence is not an option. The front line of democracy is closer than we think and it is up to all of us to protect it. Sunčana Glavak & David Casa World Press Freedom Day: Democracy's front line is closer than you think Glavak is EPP deputy coordinator culture and Casa is head of the Maltese EPP delegation A protest outside parliament in 2019 calling for justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was murdered in October 2017 Joe Vella Gauci Ggantija Heights case: Upholding outstanding universal value through due process Ambassador and permanent delegate of Malta to UNESCO, and chairman of the National World Heritage Technical Committee THE discourse surrounding the Ġgantija Heights project must be grounded in the factual rigor and procedural diligence that have defined its consideration over the past five years. While the Superintendence of Cultur- al Heritage is more than capable of defending its processes, it is pertinent to point out that the former works closely with the Maltese Government's Perma- nent Delegation to UNESCO and the Maltese National World Heritage Technical Committee. Far from being cursory or expedient, the decision mak- ing process undertaken by the Maltese authorities, specifically the National World Heritage Technical Committee, has been both exhaustive and exemplary in its adherence to internation- al cultural heritage governance standards. The project has been examined across 18 separate committee meetings, reflecting not indecision, but deliberate, structured scrutiny commensu- rate with the sensitivity of de- velopment adjacent to a World Heritage Site. Central to this process was the formal requirement for a Herit- age Impact Assessment (HIA), a tool specifically designed to evaluate whether proposed de- velopment could affect the Out- standing Universal Value (OUV) of the Ġgantija Temples. This assessment was not treated as a perfunctory exercise. On the contrary, it was transmitted to ICOMOS, UNESCO's adviso- ry body and the internationally recognised authority on World Heritage conservation. The en- gagement of ICOMOS ensured that the evaluation was not confined to national interpreta- tion but aligned with global best practice in cultural heritage pro- tection. It is important to underscore that the recommendations re- turned by ICOMOS were nei- ther ignored nor selectively applied. Each recommendation was carefully examined, debated at committee level, and translat- ed into tangible amendments to the planning proposal. Revised and updated drawings were re- submitted to demonstrate com- pliance with these expert direc- tives, ensuring that mitigation measures were not theoretical but embedded within the pro- ject's design and massing. This iterative aspect process illus- trates a planning system func- tioning as intended: adaptive, evidence based, and responsive to expert critique. Criticism that frames the pro- ject as a compromise of cultur- al heritage values overlooks the very purpose of the committee's mandate. The statutory respon- sibility of the authorities is not to prohibit development out- right, but to balance legitimate private property rights with the collective obligation to protect cultural heritage of outstand- ing universal significance. The Ġgantija Heights assessment did not privilege development at the expense of cultural heritage; rather, it sought to reconcile the two within a legally and ethically defensible framework. Most significantly, the over- riding criterion throughout the process remained the safeguard- ing of the Outstanding Universal Value of the Ġgantija Temples. The conclusion reached—the project, as amended, does not negatively impinge upon this value—was a technical deter- mination supported by inter- national expert review and sus- tained committee oversight. To characterise this outcome as erosion of cultural heritage standards is to misrepresent both the substance and integrity of the process. In affirming the work carried out over the last five years, it must be recognised that heritage protection is strongest when de- cisions are transparent, consul- tative, and guided by expertise. The Ġgantija Heights case stands as evidence that Malta's cultural heritage governance mechanisms are capable of achieving that balance, ensur- ing that development, where permitted, respects, rather than diminishes, the universal legacy entrusted to our care. The Ġgantija Heights case stands as evidence that Malta's cultural heritage governance mechanisms are capable of achieving that balance, ensuring that development, where permitted, respects, rather than diminishes, the universal legacy entrusted to our care