There is a contrast between what Labour representatives say about Daphne Caruana Galizia in Europe and what the Labour government does about her legacy in Malta.
A few days ago, Government Whip Naomi Cachia told the Council of Europe that "a journalist murdered for her work cannot become a victim for a second time through complacency, resignation or forgetfulness". She also rightly said that the search for truth and accountability cannot end with Yorgen Fenech's acquittal.
Those are important words. But words acquire their real meaning through actions.
And it is precisely here that Labour's position becomes difficult to reconcile.
Just two days after the Fenech verdict, Cachia, in her capacity as government whip, stood up in Parliament to prevent an immediate debate and vote on an Opposition motion calling for the recommendations of the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry to be implemented by the end of October. The motion was not rejected in a vote; the government simply refused to allow the immediate debate, leaving it to be scheduled at a later stage.
The public inquiry published its findings in 2021. Five years later, most of the recommendations made remain unimplemented. The government points to reforms already carried out, and says further work is ongoing. The Opposition argues that implementation remains incomplete and needs a firm deadline.
If Labour genuinely believes that Daphne must not become a victim a second time through "complacency, resignation or forgetfulness", then the government should be able to explain why it was unwilling even to debate a proposal designed to accelerate the implementation of the inquiry's recommendations.
The contradiction becomes even more striking when one considers what happened on the ground in Malta.
Last week, civil society organisations gathered in Valletta in solidarity with Daphne's family and Malta's journalists following the acquittal. The protest was organised by Repubblika and supported by numerous NGOs, including PEN Malta, Moviment Graffitti, SOS Malta and others.
Where were the Labour representatives?
Instead of visibly standing with the public and the family of a murdered journalist, Labour figures were conspicuously absent. Worse, some Labour exponents took to social media to ridicule or diminish the significance of the protest.
That is not what the international community sees.
In Paris, Labour presented itself as a defender of truth, accountability and press freedom. In Malta, when confronted with concrete demands for implementation, it becomes considerably less enthusiastic.
And then there was Culture Minister Malcolm Paul Agius Galea.
At precisely the moment when Malta needed its minister responsible for culture and the media to be unequivocal about the murder of a journalist, Agius Galea said he did not know "exactly what happened" and appeared unwilling to accept that Daphne was murdered because of her journalistic work.
This is particularly difficult to square with the findings of the public inquiry, which concluded that the State should bear responsibility for creating an atmosphere of impunity that enabled the assassination.
So which Labour position should people believe?
The one delivered in the polished surroundings of the Council of Europe, where Labour representatives speak about accountability and ensuring that Daphne does not become a victim for a second time?
Or the one demonstrated in Malta, where a government minister casts doubt on the fundamental nature of her murder, where a government whip blocks an immediate debate on implementing the inquiry's recommendations, and where Labour representatives stay away from a demonstration in defence of journalists?
Malta does not need two versions of Labour.
It needs consistency.
If Naomi Cachia truly believes that complacency and forgetfulness would constitute a second victimisation of Daphne, then the government she represents should act accordingly.
Because ultimately, the measure of political commitment is not what politicians say in Paris.
It is what they are prepared to do in Malta.