The Education Ministry is choosing to persist with a directive that fundamentally restricts the free speech of educators - even though the Ombudsman's office has recommended that this directive be changed.

Judge Vincent De Gaetano dealt with two complaints over a directive issued by the Director General for Educational Services regarding teachers and media appearances. The controversial directive had imposed restrictions on educators' participation in media.

Both complainants raised concerns about the directive's impact on freedom of expression for educators.

The directive required educators to seek prior approval for media participation and stipulated that any public statements must reflect the Ministry's policies and objectives. The judge noted that while the directive claimed to encourage public debate, "it simultaneously imposed conditions that restricted personal opinion and discouraged critical engagement."

He also observed that this constituted a form of "doublespeak" - outwardly promoting healthy dialogue while demanding total conformity. "Such a stance contradicted the provisions of Directive 5 issued by the then Principal Permanent Secretary on 24 February 2011, which allows public officers in certain grades to express personal opinions, as long as these are clearly personal and not official positions, he wrote. "Furthermore, the requirement for prior approval from line managers and the Director General added another layer of administrative control, which could have a chilling effect on educators' willingness to speak publicly."

He concluded that the directive was not a mere restatement of existing rules, as argued by Ministry for Education, Sport, Youth, Research and Innovation (MEYR), but that it also introduced new constraints which he said are inconsistent with the principles of freedom of expression in a democratic society.

The directive fell short of human rights standards, "in so far as it forbade all public officers, irrespective of grade 'from commenting on matters that pertain to their ministry and in particular their area of work, even if in a personal capacity."

Both complaints were upheld, and it was recommended that ministry issue revised guidelines ensuring that teachers and educators, particularly those not holding managerial roles, are free to express personal views on their work and the educational system without fear of disciplinary action.

Yet the Education Ministry failed to revise the guidelines - instead opting to continue with this new brand of censorship.

It is quite counter intuitive that on the one hand many believe that Malta needs an education system which fosters critical though, but on the other hand, the people who are running the said education system think that it's perfectly fine to censor any educators from deviating from the government line.

This is a directive which is all about control: it is about the government wanting to control the narrative and to ensure that the system is run is not criticised - because of course, who else is better placed to criticise the system than the ones forced to abide by it?

A directive like this borders on being a constitutional case waiting to happen because it is a clear breach of a person's fundamental right to free speech.

But that's how the Education Ministry seems to like it: it would rather stop people from speaking out, even if it means that they'd be disrespecting their fundamental rights.

Now think of what message that sends to the children within the educational system, and think of what type of education that system is fostering in those children - and ask yourself whether these are the principles that we want in schools.