Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/786708
9 maltatoday WEDNESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2017 Editorial Time to reform press laws MaltaToday, MediaToday Co. Ltd, Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 MANAGING EDITOR: SAVIOUR BALZAN EDITOR: JURGEN BALZAN Tel: (356) 21 382741-3, 21 382745-6 • Fax: (356) 21 385075 Website: www.maltatoday.com.mt E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt At the time of going to print, MaltaToday learnt that the government was now reacting to the Opposition's proposal to remove garnishee orders against the press, with a commendable wholesale revamp of the Press Act that included the abolition of criminal libel. Hours before, this newspaper's editors were discussing how the furore over a garnishee order slapped by Economy Minis- ter Chris Cardona on Malta Independent columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia has once again cast the spotlight on Malta's archaic press legislation. But already, the opportunity for a long overdue reform seems to have misfired. The issue concerning Car- dona's precautionary warrant is indeed a serious matter... but, strictly speaking, the two issues are distinct and must be tackled separately. In itself, the concept of a pre- cautionary warrant is not neces- sarily a bad thing. In commercial litigations it is often necessary to prevent the liquidation of assets to avoid paying legitimate debts. It has uses in criminal scenarios, too. The problem concerns its ap- plicability to a libel suit. In this case, there isn't an actual debt to be paid by either party... and will not be any until a verdict is reached, and the defend- ant found guilty. This clearly violates the presumption of innocence. It must be said, too, that the decision to resort to such drastic action smacks of totalitarianism. Aggrieved though Cardona may feel, he must leave room for the fact that as a public person, he is under greater scrutiny from the press (though that same press must exercise its own responsi- bility too), and be mindful that he represents a government committed to the protection of human rights. He has a responsi- bility to reassure the public that his ultimate aim is justice... not personal revenge. But the real issue at stake here concerns criminal libel, not precautionary warrants. As with electoral reform and other grand projects (which are all supposed to be under review by a largely forgotten Consti- tutional reform exercise) the abolition of criminal libel is an issue which occasionally rears its head... only to quickly submerge and fade out of public discus- sion. In 2015, the Labour govern- ment was contemplating a new package of laws that would allow injured parties to seek redress through mediation instead of court action. According to these proposals, criminal libel would be abolished. Civil libel would remain in force, subject to the failure of mediation attempts. On Tuesday, this entire exer- cise was resurrected. Opposition leader Simon Bu- suttil had also called for the abo- lition of criminal libel in 2015. "A modern democracy cannot allow for the possibility of being thrown in jail when expressing their right to freedom of expres- sion," he underlined. Yet nowhere is the abolition of criminal libel mentioned in his private members' bill this week. It seems the Opposition's con- cern is now more the protection of one blogger's private assets, than the rights of journalists not to be treated as criminals. On no account must this issue be overlooked any longer. There is more at stake than freedom of expression – though that remains, ultimately, the under- lying issue. There is also the complicity of the State in media suppression. By filing a criminal libel suit, one also enlists the office of the prosecution (which, in Malta, falls under the Police) to conduct the case at its own expense. This raises the question of whether it is congruent for the State to foot the bill for a private litigation. From this perspective, criminal libel makes the State an acces- sory to the intimidation of the free press. This has long been recog- nised by the media which have variously campaigned for the removal of criminal libel for years. Moreover, the Council of Europe has issued repeated calls to "abolish prison sentences for defamation without delay": argu- ing that the continued existence of prison sentences for defama- tion still allowed those countries to impose them and "provok- ing a corrosion of fundamental freedoms." There are also practical consid- erations. Though libel laws are necessary to protect people from malicious or baseless insinua- tions, widespread abuse of crim- inal libel has stif led investigative journalism in Malta. Newspapers think twice about undertaking any investigation they fear may attract a libel writ – which, under present legal definitions, could apply to any issue at all – and often will not fight a libel case even if what they printed was true. There can be no doubt that libel suits are a weapon in the hands of the powerful. But instead of addressing these issues, before proposing whole- sale changes to the law yesterday evening, government's response to the current controversy seemed geared in the opposite direction. Labour MP Deborah Scembri has even proposed laws to protect politicians from inva- sion of privacy. Again, this confuses separate issues. One should not confuse the intrusion in someone's private life with the fabrication of a story about someone's pri- vate life. The problem with the Cardona allegations is not that they were made... but that they could have been made without proof; of if said proof exists, not published in full respect of read- ers as well as of the person about whom the allegations are made. If proof were supplied, there would be no question that the actions of the minister were in- deed of public interest. He was, at the time, representing the government on official business. Having said this, intrusions in the public life of a politician are only legitimate if the alleged actions affect a politician's judgement in public matters. Certainly they should not be ex- ploited to stop journalists from investigating stories which have direct bearing on the running of the country... especially not by the same political class which has a made a virtue out of unac- countability.