Editorial 28/07/2002

A perfect case of ‘gagging’ the press

This week, Dr Jose Herrera, a Labour parliamentarian, presented a breach of privilege complaint against MaltaToday on Sunday and its editor.

Dr Jose Herrera argued that the editorial falsely reported him and insulted him. He added that the editorial was part of a vendetta against him.

All these accusations are false but we stand by what we wrote and the comments we passed.

Fundamentally, the editorial with the title, "Why does Jose Herrera want stiffer penalties?" queried the Labour MP’s call for tougher penalties

Our reaction to Dr Herrera’s parliamentary speech was, typical for MaltaToday, to the point.

We continue to believe that the Press has an important role in sustaining democracy and the flow of information. In Malta more often than not, freedom of the Press is hampered by corporate business and political influence. One politician chooses to describe it as prostitution even though he himself is entrenched in the system.

No matter how repulsive we may find certain media commentators, Manwel Cuschieri and some others come to mind, we believe that in a free press they also contribute by stimulating discussion and debate.

Without them, there would be fewer questions and less probing.

Dr Herrera is for creating more hurdles for the Press. Dr Jose Herrera. we wrote, is obviously irked by certain newspaper reporting in which members of his family were the unfortunate focus of media attention on alleged corruption.

We have no feud with Dr Herrera. If he imagines our newspaper investigations on the late Labour minister of works to be a vendetta, then we would like to assure him that it isn't.

The fact that Dr Herrera resorted to an obsolete parliamentary procedure in retaliation reveals his frame of mind and his inability to accept changes in the way the media has developed.

The breach of privilege procedure allows the Maltese House of Representatives to act as judge and jury at the same time. It gives the parliament the right to deliver judgements against individuals who appear to have offended a member of parliament.

It has been described and proven to be an affront to human rights in the past and yet, the House continues to allow its members to make use of it freely.

Dr Herrera also finds it unbelievably difficult to accept fair comment as part of the media’s contribution to political analysis and discourse.

In our last editorial we argued that Dr Herrera’s suggestion to increase penalties should be opposed.

We insisted that politicians should continue to be scrutinised by the press. We continue to believe that public officials should be scrutinised.

The press should have a free rein when it comes to analysing and commenting about their activities. Obviously there are limits.

We feel that Dr Herrera’s breach of privilege is vexatious. It also demeans the House.

Parliamentary privilege should be no more.