For all the procrastination and stamping of feet that often goes on in parliament, the work of committees should never be overlooked.

There was a very interesting discussion on the Committee for the Consolidation of Laws, as its Chairman, Franco Debono, and Opposition MP Jose Herrera agreed that current criminal libel laws were outdated and should be binned. This was also agreed to in principle by MP Francis Zammit Dimech, who did, however, express reservations on recourse to compensation, as loopholes could appear.

Let us break this down. In the current climate, Malta is a fully-fledged democracy. Protests may take place without hindrance, if they are legal and non-violent. The rule of law has long been established and is put into practice like anywhere else in the world.

Yet, we do have an antiquated law which does impinge on the right to free speech. That law is criminal libel. Other states in Europe still retain this law, but it has become dead letter – it is not used in practice. So what does criminal libel involve? Criminal libel charges are issued when a person who feels to be a victim of defamation may file a complaint with the police, and the state will pick up the investigation and proceed to file charges – even on minimalist evidence, such as a cutting, or if a video clip is produced.

If a person is found guilty of libel, and has been charged under criminal laws, that then goes on their record, permanently. That person – it could be an editor, a journalist, a letter writer – could then end up with an indelible mark on their record.

Those charges and the police investigation are paid for by the state, so not only is the person who files for it getting a ‘free’ ride into court, they are also putting people who aspire for freedom of expression and to bring the truth out, into the same bracket as petty criminals. What is even more irksome is that the ones who tend to resort to such tactics, are normally politicians. This becomes even more glaringly shocking when one looks at the argument put forward by the MPs at committee stage who cited a 1986 European Court of Human Rights ruling which stipulates that politicians and anyone in public life are to expect that limits of acceptable criticism are higher for politicians than private citizens.

In most countries around, libel is dealt with in the Civil Courts, and this is how it should be. Dr Debono argued that if criminal libel is thrown out, then pecuniary measures within the Civil Court needed to be increased – we agree. We also agree with his reasoning where he said that in doing so, people might think twice about hurling insults and accusations at people without justification.

But at the same time, we also encourage the MP to advocate for higher charges to file such complaints against people in court. That would have the same self-regulatory effect as would the increased fines for people found guilty of slander.

It is too easy in this country to try and gag the press. Criminal libel is one such way. This newspaper has seen its share of libel cases. We have won some and we have lost a lot less. Of this we are proud, because we take our mission seriously and have never sought to sensationalise or purposely tarnish the reputations of others. But in turn, we must say that criminal libel is outdated, unfair, gross over-trumped, abused and not befitting of a modern democracy.

The media is a watchdog, but to look out for signs of trouble, it must be allowed to practise its profession without the threat of jail if a magistrate decides that slander merits it. Even though this has never happened, the threat is still there, menacing and grossly disproportionate.