Gaffarena Gate has been the black hole of news and information over the past week or so. Anything else newsworthy was sucked into the vortex of the spinning black hole of Falzon’s resignation, Muscat’s double-speak on governance and the n-th celebration of disgraced politicians by a Labour mass meeting. Patriots and pork only just made it past the all-enveloping scandal and this was probably due more to the ridiculous stunts performed by the defenders of bigilla and zalzett than to any real newsworthiness. Even the Times descended into silly land asking the haplessly controversial question whether persons of a particular religion should be allowed to congregate and play.
Meanwhile in a law court not so far, far away a very important bit of jurisprudence was in the making. In the court presided by the impeccable Magistrate Depasquale, Minister Konrad Mizzi was desperate to prove that he had cause for grievance against blogger (for ’tis in this vest that she hath been summonsed) Daphne Caruana Galizia. Such cause for grievance had been filed under Malta’s much maligned, misused and abused libel laws – those that have criminal consequences, so to speak. Caruana Galizia had written about some supposed/alleged fling between Minister Conrad Mizzi and one of his minions involving, among other allegations, an exchange of kisses in public. Minister Mizzi could only but cry “lie” at this serious allegation that would, if proven true, amount to an extra-marital flirtation by said Minister. Hence the law-suit. So far so good.
We were informed, through the medium of the press, that in the sitting of January 18th, the line taken by Mizzi’s lawyers was a rather unorthodox one. Messers Mifsud Bonnici (Aaron) and Lia (Pawlu) were insisting that Caruana Galizia reveal the source of the libellous information. And here lies the problem. Not just for Mme Caruana Galizia but for every single citizen of the island of pork-guzzling patriots and martyred ex-Parliamentary Secretaries. You see, Caruana Galizia was sticking to the age old universal protection afforded to journalists with regard to their sources. She was not obliged at law, she argued, to reveal her sources for her journalistic work. True. Very true.
The only problem was that the legal team for Minister Mizzi of the government that championed the protection of whistleblowers among many other things decided to become incredibly narrow and literal minded in their application of the law. Shylock was after his pound of flesh. The reasoning put forward by the lawyer who has been touted as the next Chief Justice of the land (pray note that this also means that he would chair the Constitutional Court, guardian of all things holy) was that since the blog in which Daphne writes can not be registered under the Press Act then surely Daphne Caruana Galizia is not acting as a journalist whenever she writes in her blog. Which would mean of course that her sources – who she has called moles, spies and other names through the lifespan of her blog – would be afforded no protection.
Which is a load of hogwash of course. A load of hogwash that would only find place in Kafka’s novels or in the best of Soviet theatres and kangaroo courts. But this is Malta in the time of Joseph Muscat and a very very weird interpretation of the law and legal rights (The government has just gone and sued itself in a case so don’t even dare challenging this assertion).
Let’s go step by step.
1. She is not a journalist
You may not agree with the woman. You may find her blog to be the result of a particularly efficient network that collates information and disseminates it in a selective Wikileaks manner. You may, like me, find her automatic negative reaction to anything Gozitan particularly distasteful. You may think all these things and more but to insist that Daphne Caruana Galizia – even when restricted to the blogging hat of Daphne Caruana Galizia – is not a journalist is complete and utter hogwash. In the year 2000, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe drafted a recommendation signed by most of its member states with regard to the protection of journalists from disclosing their sources. (Full name – Recommendation No. R (2000) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information). Here’s the definition section of the Recommendation:
Definitions
For the purposes of this Recommendation:
a. the term “journalist” means any natural or legal person who is regularly or professionally engaged in the collection and dissemination of information to the public via any means of mass communication;
b. the term “information” means any statement of fact, opinion or idea in the form of text, sound and/or picture;
c. the term “source” means any person who provides information to a journalist;
d. the term “information identifying a source” means, as far as this is likely to lead to the identification of a source:
i. the name and personal data as well as voice and image of a source,
ii. the factual circumstances of acquiring information from a source by a journalist,
iii. the unpublished content of the information provided by a source to a journalist, and
iv. personal data of journalists and their employers related to their professional work.
It fits nicely does it not? We have not even begun to look at the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court (Goodwin anyone?) or the European Charter of Rights. The recommendation is already clear enough about how far the protection should go. It is not restricted to some state defined numerus clausus such as a list of “approved journalists” under the Press Act. Any natural or legal person. Regularly engaged in the collection and dissemination of information. To the public. Via any means of mass communication. I don’t know about you but it is pretty clear to me that Daphne’s blog falls fair and square within this definition and that would make Daphne a journalist even when she is limited to blogging on the Running Commentary.
2. She has to disclose the source
What is this obsession about the source anyway? It is in fact the most dangerous part of the case being built by Mifsud Bonnici and Lia. Don’t be mistaken because there are no scruples here. We all know that Daphne Caruana Galizia is prepared to go all the way to defend her right to publish information in blog form. Blog and be damned she will. Aaron Mifsud Bonnici knows it, Pawlu Lia knows it and most of all Konrad Mizzi knows it. The very public obnoxious shake up here is not directed at Caruana Galizia but at any potential source. What after all is the use of getting the accused in the libel case to give up the source of the information? Very little really. Except that Mizzi and his team do not care about anything other than putting the fear of god into anyone who might in the future be made to think twice about whether or not to send one of those quickly snapped photos of yet another politicians’ misdemeanors.
Whether a Minister chooses to have an extra-marital fling is a debatable piece of news that can be used in various ways. As any Monica Lewinsky, Lord Boothby or John Profumo might vouch, sexual affairs and politicians rarely are just that. More often than not they have repercussions of a constitutional nature and any self-respecting journalist in his right mind would want to investigate and report.
Sources are paramount for Daphne’s kind of blog that is less pundit and more reportage thanks to a long list of willing suppliers of information that end up being a very informal but well-connected network. Muscat’s men know that the effects of this network can be lethal. Which is why in this case they are not really going for the journalist and editor of the blog. They want to get to the source. They want to put an end to the network of informants and to do so they are prepared to attempt to get the courts of the land to apply a very dangerous and literal-minded precedent.
To conclude. The journalistic profession has not had a good last two decades. When more than two-thirds of the people who get their bread and butter from some form of journalistic work are inextricably linked with the major political parties you tend to get a withering of the power of the fourth estate – one of the important pillars of a democratic society. The lack of respect towards the profession was never more blatant than in moments when journalist credentials were handed out to anybody that the parties needed for a particular stunt. Remember JPO bearing a PN press card in order to harass Alfred Sant in his crocodile tears phase?
The profession needs to win back respect and it can only do so by performing its duty of investigating and monitoring the powers of the nation without letting them interfere. It also deserves all forms of protection from any institutional assault such as this one being orchestrated by Konrad Mizzi.
It is not Daphne Caruana Galizia who is in danger. It is an important cog in the machinery of a democracy and it is the citizens of the democracy who have a right to access all forms of information and weigh it on their own account. For all our sake and for all that we stand for, Daphne’s privates must be saved.
“They’re talking about things of which they don’t have the slightest understanding, anyway. It’s only because of their stupidity that they’re able to be so sure of themselves.”
― Franz Kafka, The Trial
