Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/826629
14 Dr Cardona, you are cur- rently suing Daphne Caruana Galizia for libel over a story concerning an alleged visit to a brothel. The case centres on the issue of freedom of speech. At the same time, you are no stranger to using hard-hitting language yourself. For in- stance, when you said (words to the effect of) that 'we will respond to dagger-thrusts by wielding an axe' – isn't this a contradiction? I think a distinction has to be made: the 'axe' reference was a political metaphor. It was a time when the PL was on the receiv- ing end of many unfair attacks: not by journalists, but by people who play the part of journalists, but who have a political, not ed- itorial agenda. Metaphorically, I could have said: 'if you punch us, we will punch you back twice'. But I chose to use the axe metaphor instead. On the other hand: when it comes to freedom of speech, I think our government – in this term and in others – has been a prime mover in this area. But freedom of speech does not mean one is free to say whatever one pleases. There are parameters. When it comes to the parameters of lies, invention and fiction, I think one doesn't have the right to calumny others. This morn- ing, Daphne Caruana Galizia lost a libel case at appeals stage against (ironically) one of our new candidates [Julia Farrugia]. She [Daphne] had alleged that she [Farrugia] had performed lewd acts, had stripped in pub- lic, that she was a 'bitch', etc... [...] Another example was when she put up a picture taken from Facebook, at a political event, and alleged that I was in the company of prostitutes... when the women in the picture where ordinary people, attending a public political event with their families and children [...] We can't descend into these gutter levels of supposed 'journalism'. That is not journalism; journal- ism is what you and your col- leagues do: you follow a story. It annoys us sometimes, true; but we, politicians, need you, the fourth pillar, to make us more careful in our actions. At the same time, however, you also requested a garnishee order to freeze Daphne Carua- na Galizia's accounts... It was perfectly legal... ... I'm not contesting the le- gality; but from a political per- spective, doesn't that send out the message that you are trying to muzzle your critics by any means possible? I don't see it that way. First of all, it's not in my nature to resort to libel. The only other libel case I filed was against [former PM] Eddie Fenech Ad- ami – which I won – over a lie he said about me on the eve of the last election. I didn't request any garnishee orders. The only other libel cases were instituted against me; such as one by [for- mer minister] Tonio Fenech, which I won as well. But in the context of this case, I think that an extreme action such as the one taken by Daphne Caruana Galizia deserved an extreme re- sponse. It was an extreme reac- tion, but within the parameters of the law. There was a request submitted to the court, pre- sided by Magistrate Francesco Depasquale, to have those gar- nishee orders revoked; but the magistrate did not revoke them. In his reply to those submis- sions, he left the garnishee or- ders in place... Fair enough, but that is a le- galistic reply. No one is ques- tioning your legal right to re- quest a garnishee order; but there is a political price tag. As a politician, your actions are interpreted as part of an attitude. In this case, it seems the attitude is intolerance to criticism. Undoubtedly, but only where [the criticism] steps beyond the journalistic parameters: some- thing she [Daphne] does every day. At least, there was one person who tried to stop her. There were many people – and I'm saying this for the first time today – not from our camp, but from the opposing camp, who were disgusted by the way in which Daphne Caruana Gali- zia – who, when she sees this interview, will probably invent a new lie about me... that I've been seen in the company of shady characters, or that I was supposed to be here but in re- ality was somewhere else... [laughs] Anyway, there were a lot of people in the Nationalist camp who told me: 'Chris, you had the courage to take this action against her. She is dam- aging us; she is costing us sup- port. She is detracting from the serenity within the structures of the Nationalist Party.' [...] Obviously a lot of people don't want there to be this type of attack based on lies and inven- tion; this sort of political char- acter assassination. Because at the end of the day, this is what this is: it is character assassina- tion, for the simple reason that she can't criticise me over my work. This is the irony: I would accept criticism over my perfor- mance as a minister. How well I performed in the economy; how much foreign investment I attracted; how many new jobs we created; how many foreign factories we brought over in the manufacturing sector; how many new economic niches we are now seeing. I would have no problem if she criticised me on these things. My colleagues on the other side of the House criticise me on this all the time. Sometimes we agree, some- times we don't. Sometimes they make recommendations; some- times we take them on board, sometimes we don't. But they don't go into these gutter levels that this person descends to... But there is a distinction be- tween politicians and the man in the street vis-a-vis private lives. The question of whether a politician visits a brothel while on government business, is not the same in the case of an ordi- nary citizen... My private life is public do- main. I agree with this; I have no problem that my private life is investigated. But I expect that what emerges is the truth. For instance, she wrote a year ago that I went to a festa to take drugs. She uploaded photos of me, which she later removed, in which my face was superim- posed onto that of an actor in a movie scene about a drug deal. This is something disgusting. I don't want to be associated with this sort of thing, because I have no connection whatso- ever with drugs. I have never taken drugs, I never touched drugs, I never sold drugs... so I think this person should not just be permitted to allege these things. This is NOT journalism. This is character assassination. I will say it again: I agree that my pri- vate life should be in the public domain. The actions of a politi- cian should be subject to public scrutiny. I agree with this. But it doesn't mean we can attribute lies to politicians, just like that. That we can all shoot from the hip, in the hope of hitting some- thing. This is disgusting behav- iour, and I think that nation- ally, matters have now reached breaking point. There is con- sensus, a 'coalition'... not the 'coalition of confusion' of Si- mon Busuttil and Marlene Far- rugia, but a coalition of thought that we should not allow this sort of hate speech about people who are, at the end of the day, serving their country. The defence has meanwhile requested your mobile phone records, to establish your whereabouts that night. If you insist that you are innocent, why not produce evidence which should (by your argu- ment) exculpate you? I have no problem with it, but we have to be careful not to cre- ate dangerous precedents. The rule of law and the principles of natural justice demand that if you make an accusation against someone, you must support it with at least a shred of evidence. We have seen [a perversion of this principle] in my case, and more recently in the Egrant case. Simon Busuttil rode on a story by Daphne Caruana Gali- zia, which is not substantiated at all. It is a lie from beginning to end. When we come to the moment of proof, those who are making the allegation must shoulder their responsibility for their words. I can't imagine how Simon Busuttil can – like his 'partner' ['sehbitu'] Daphne Caruana Galizia – avoid taking responsibility for the enormous lie he told about Joseph Muscat and his wife Michelle. I can't understand how they are now changing the story. Now, they [the Muscats] have to prove they don't own Egrant. What on earth? The burden of proof doesn't work that way. One: the sacrosanct principle in the courts of justice is that the bur- den proof lies with the person making the allegations. Two, this is not 'a fishing expedition'. I know what's going to happen... Which case are you talking about now? Mine. But it also goes for the prime minister's. What will happen is this: they ask for my mobile records; I say, fine, no problem, here they are; they show that there is nothing to support the allegation. What will she say then? She will say: 'Ah, that's most likely because he switched off his mobile, or left it somewhere. So now we'll ask NASA to supply data using their satellites...' This is not a fishing expedition. Whoever alleges needs to prove; and be- fore you make an allegation like that, you need evidence. You need witnesses. You need to go to court with something in your hand. We're not a third Interview By Raphael Vassallo maltatoday, SUNDAY, 21 MAY 2017 There were a lot of people in the Nationalist camp who told me: 'Chris, you had the courage to take this action against [Daphne Caruana Galizia]. She is damaging us; she is costing us support...' GARNISHEE ORDER This is character assassination, Corruption is a smokescreen that Simon Busuttil [...] is clinging onto by his fingertips, because he has no real alternative to this government. There has not been a single case of corruption under this government... DENIAL