How can Minister Owen Bonnici still believe he is right, when a long list of experts has proved him to be wrong by exposing the grievous shortcomings of the government’s draft Media and Defamation Bill?

In substance, that was last Friday’s take of the editorial of The Malta Independent. But listening to Labour’s One News maliciously edited report of my meeting with the Institute of Journalists makes you think that there is a wide agreement on the law that simply needs some minor tweaking. That is what the government and its propaganda machine would have us believe.

But The Malta Independent’s line of thought follows the concerns voiced by experts and journalists alike. Dean of the Faculty of Communications and Media Studies Professor George Mallia, Dean of The Faculty of Law Professor Kevin Aquilina, IT Law expert Dr Antonio Ghio, Head of the Department of Information Policy and Governance at the University and special rapporteur on privacy to the UN’s Human Rights Council Professor Joe Cannataci and former head of the Malta Communications Authority Philip Micallef have all unequivocally stated what is so fundamentally wrong with this proposed law.

The new Media Law: Orwellian in nature

The problem with the government’s draft Media and Defamation Bill does not simply stem from the fact that the government was caught with its pants down and, following the public outcry, hastily took a leaf out of Simon Busuttil’s book and pledged to repeal criminal libel and garnishee orders against journalists. That alone, although justified, would have simply been a reaction to the government’s political mediocrity. More than that, the government’s proposed bill not only doubled the fines for libel but also included the forced registration of all news and current affairs websites. No wonder that the law was described as a perverse affront to citizen freedoms and both tyrannical and Orwellian in nature.

So for the umpteenth time, allow me to repeat the PN’s position on the matter in the hope that the government, the Labour Party and its mouthpiece finally understand it. Yes, we do need an updated media law that reflects technological and social developments. What we do not need is a retrograde piece of legislation that smacks of totalitarian statism.

So either the government listens to the people now by totally removing the authoritarian streak of the draft law or it will be removed as soon as the Nationalist Party is returned to power and Simon Busuttil becomes Prime Minister. This is not saying, as Labour and One News seem to imply, that we will repeal laws that prohibit criminal libels and garnishee orders against journalists. How can we? We were the ones who, in the face of the government’s reluctance, issued policy documents and moved a Private Member’s Bill to remove these hindrances to journalism and free speech in the first place.

Broadcasting Authority: the chair is out of her depth

Don’t be fooled into thinking that the government’s curbs on the freedom of expression are limited to its Media and Defamation Bill. That would be a lack of ambition on its part. Labour has a problem with opinions it cannot control, however they are expressed. As with equality, it is very selective in this regard: it wants you to think of it as the Party that removed censorship while it is busy placing restrictions on its critics.

Just as Parliament will be the venue where the internet is muzzled, the Broadcasting Authority is the place where the same thing will happens to TV. Now impartiality on TV has long been a battleground on which political parties have fought for every inch of turf. It is easy to be tempted to think that what we face today is more of the same and there is little lost by switching off. But this time it is different.

Previous holders of the post could claim to have some degree of expertise on the subject. This was essential. After all, the Authority effectively acts as an administrative court, delivering judgments that not only touch on fundamental rights but are also politically highly sensitive. For all the disagreement the holder of the post might face, he has to have the knowledge and enjoy and deserve the respect to fulfil the public’s expectations.

When the Prime Minister proposed Tanya Borg Cardona as chair of the Authority, the Nationalist Party immediately expressed its reservations. It would have taken only one glance at her CV to realise that she would be completely out of her depth. This did not matter much to the Prime Minister: by now making public appointments on the sole criterion of political loyalty has become a sort of habit.

Broadcasting Authority: troubled times

To add insult to injury, Ms Borg Cardona is going out of her way to wreck the Authority, rendering it a shell institution. It was inevitable that the Authority should attract political attention over the years, whichever Party was in government. But its staff has always exercised the due discretion and unwavering commitment to the institution that you would expect of exemplary public servants.

This time they found themselves compelled to take the unprecedented step of writing to the Prime Minister to highlight their plight and the subtle harassment they are being made to suffer at their place of work while carrying out their duties. The latest is that the Authority will vacate the fully-equipped building it owns – and which has been its natural home for years – and be moved to leased premises which may not have enough space to meet the its requirements.

While Rome burns, the chair plays the lyre. Borg Cardona has ensured that Authority meetings – and opposition to her plans – are kept to a minimum while she enjoys to the full the perks that come with the job.

In the meantime – and as I write – there seems to be no reply to the employees’ expression of disappointment and mental anguish. As a new Nationalist government, we will apply the policy of appointing people who have the abilities for the job they will occupy. Earth-shattering? No. Our country will be back to being a normal European country once again.

Media regulation: a sensible way forward

The type of media regulation we choose will ultimately define our democracy for the years to come. Freedom of speech and the citizen’s right to impartial and factual information should be guiding principles. Active citizenship through public debate and scrutiny is to be facilitated and encouraged not curbed. Having prudent and ethical journalism should not come at the expense of it being lame and tame. The present draft legislation proposes exactly the opposite to what is desirable: making it sensible requires the shedding of its Orwellian streak, rather than minor tweaking.

At the same time we must find a way to make sure that the Broadcasting Authority is run in a serious, impartial and credible way to meet its present constitutional obligations whilst taking note of developments and various platforms such as IPTV over which the Authority has no control.

A lack of leadership, added to partisanship and incompetence as has recently been the case, certainly do not help the cause.