A story from Malta Today, before Robert Musumeci became its MEPAWatch man
Don't look now, but I think those people are criticising us.
Rather than campaigning for greater freedom of expression as the necessary underpinning of democracy, and for the repeal of our criminal defamation laws in line with European thinking, Jose Herrera wants even harsher penalties for criticism of politicians.
And yes, in Malta even exposing a politician to public ridicule is enough to get you into trouble with the law, especially if your case is heard by one Magistate Silvio Meli, who would have been happier with no free press at all.
Malta Today, Editorial 21/07/2002
Why does Jose want stiffer penalties?
Labour MP Jose Herrera said in parliament this week that the figure of Lm5,000 awarded in libel cases was far too small. His statement was reported without any comment by some newspapers. In our view his suggestion is scandalous to say the least.
Newspapers and the media are already far too reserved and restricted in their investigative probes.
The reasons behind Dr Herrera’s drive are understandable. His late father a judge was for some time the focus of much media attention in relation to corruption investigations after a number of serious allegations.
Dr Herrera obviously considers part of the media especially those who do not reproduce his opinions with a portrait of him sitting in a black leather executive chair as the scum of the earth.
We use the word ‘part’ with abundant reason.
The Maltese media in general does not investigate politicians and other high profile individuals. It avoids them and it will only carry a story if it can support the text it carries with a court ruling. This newspaper purports to being independent and takes a different line.
Dr Herrera is counsel to a number of cases against this newspaper. Understandably it his job to defend his clients, but it is also our prerogative to appreciate his choice of clients and it is our job to uncover the facts and deliver the news to our readers.
A case in point, is the front page story we carry in today’s issue, which involves a Labour MP, Prof. Louis Buhagiar, who has commenced libel proceedings against this newspaper over a story regarding reports of overcharging patients.
His lawyer is none other than Dr Jose Herrera, another Member of Parliament. Both have somehow found themselves in the Malta Labour Party, strangely represented by more bohemians and ‘rich’ folk than one could care to fondle.
The particular story we have carried and the stories that will follow are all based on facts. We have not even entertained the ‘issue’ of fair comment.
And yet, Dr Herrera who rocketed into politics not out of charisma or visionary politics, chooses to deride the media and call for harsher penalities when it comes to libel cases.
We have a meek media, in Malta, one where newspaper directors, politicians and businessmen place and put pressure on the editors and their journalists.
Dr Herrera’s comments should be castigated. The vast majority of politicians on both sides of the house, should continue to be scrutinised in the press for their interests, business contacts and inconsistencies.
This does not mean that journalists and editors should not be held responsible for their actions. If the leader of this column chooses for argument sake to smoke a joint of cannabis in full view of the public to prove a point about decriminalisation of soft drugs, he should not be too surprised if prosecuted.
As journalists we have responsibility.
There will be times when we will lose libel cases, and other times, as was the case with Anglu Farrugia when we will defeat such legal proceedings.
But we will not be gagged and attempts at making our job more difficult should be met with a very strong reaction.
Perhaps, the Press Club could make a note.
18 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Good Luck
It seems like today’s Malta Today is not the same Malta Today of yester-year. What has changed?
And some of MT’s Special Report files have gone missing . . . http://archive.maltatoday.com.mt/2002/reports.html
Herrera is a firm believer in freedom of expression as long as it does not offend.
In that case it ceases to exist – Salman Rushdie.
Is that not Joseph Cuschieri on the right?
Several months ago, someone remarked on this blog that he did not seem to have many ties in his cupboard. Apparently, the situation has not changed. This is from The Times today:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101012/local/sixth-ep-seat-still-a-dream-cuschieri-complains
Compare to above.
My gosh what an anally retentive person (only in the Freudian sense, OK?) you must be to remember the ties someone wears or does not wear.
Meanwhile, Daphne, I love your articles: the ones where you use logic with surgical precision (not that logic always makes sense. I was shown how illogical logic can be at one of my first logic classes). But why must you then you pepper your really good stuff with what is at best an Anglicised version of what one hears in a village grocery store?
Let me put this another way: when I saw the picture above, I did not recognise Joseph Cuschieri – I recognised his tie.
Maybe there is no space for extra ties in his cupboard because PL has parked all the MLP skeletons there.
The usual cretinous remark by the Third-Rate Brain:
“The particular story we have carried and the stories that will follow are all based on facts. We have not even entertained the ‘issue’ of fair comment.”
If the article on Buhagiar was based on facts, what was the Third-Rate Brain complaining about?
If it was really based on facts which the Third-Rate Brain could prove, then he would have won the libel proceedings bl-ispejjez.
Ah – but I forget (stupid me!) that he’s a Third-Rate Brain, and can’t recognize a contradiction even if it gives him a business card.
Actually, I do not know whose is the most cretinous remark, the Third-Rate Brain’s or Herrera’s.
We have been “graced” with Lorry Sant’s and Alfred Sant’s photos in The Times today. What painful memories of those days of Rene’s shameful mistreatment! The family suffered financially and I feel they deserve compensation.
Not only did they not get compensation, they did not even get an apology from Carmen Sant. Faced with such a clear judgement, she only lamented that her late husband was not present to defend himself and that she had to sit through the ordeal herself.
I wish I was a good writer – for sure I would write a “factual” book of the happenings in those days – or is there one? If so, it could be included in the history that PL is revisiting.
Please note that the undersigned is not and nor is he related in any way to ‘JP Bonello’ who wrote earlier and hereby declares that the views expressed by the latter do not represent his own.
Is this double Dutch?
Fine Joe…but since you haven’t enlightened us with your own views, what was the purpose of your post?
To say that he doesn’t agree with what J P Bonello wrote, without actually saying it.
Xi haga totalment differenti. I was looking at a wikipidea page reading about history of SABENA airline. A parliamentary committee was set up in Belgium to investigate its bankruptcy. Politicians were partly to blame. Rik Daems, who at the time was Minister of Public Enterprises & Participations, Telecommunication and MIDDLE CLASSES, received most criticism due to his lack of effort. Swissair itself went bankrupt in October of that year
—–
Tghid jithajjar Joseph, jaghmlilna Ministru ghall-Middle Class?