Alleanza Nazzjonali Repubblikana spokesman's €2,400 libel award overturned on appeal

An appeals court has overturned a judgment ordering columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia to pay former Alleanza Nazzjonali Repubblikana spokesman Martin Degiorgio €2,400 in damages for describing him as a 'fascist'

The Court of Appeal said it was of the opinion that Daphne Caruana Galizia was 'clearly expressing her opinion based on the positions taken by the persons mentioned in the articles, on the subject of immigration in Malta'
The Court of Appeal said it was of the opinion that Daphne Caruana Galizia was 'clearly expressing her opinion based on the positions taken by the persons mentioned in the articles, on the subject of immigration in Malta'

An appeals court has overturned a 2015 judgment which had ordered columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia to pay former Alleanza Nazzjonali Repubblikana spokesman Martin Degiorgio €2,400 in damages for describing him as a fascist.

Degiorgio had filed for libel in 2006 after Caruana Galizia authored two opinion pieces, published in The Malta Independent on Sunday, one titled ‘Black shirts and blacker hearts’ and the other ‘Martin and friends make the news.’ The articles compared Degiorgio to local far-right leader Norman Lowell.

One article quoted the Alleanza Nazzjonali Repubblikana spokesman as warning that “Africans risked turning Malta into the toilet of the Mediterranean” – a claim allegedly made to the International Herald Tribune which was reported by another portal in Malta.

Degiorgio had claimed that the articles had portrayed him as someone who harboured extremist views and as a fascist, and that they suggested that he might have been involved in arson attacks against journalists and members of the Jesuit community working with migrants.

In its 2015 decision the court of magistrates, with magistrate Gabriella Vella presiding, held that the comments were libellous and that they did not constitute fair comment.

But this decision was overturned yesterday, following an appeal to that judgement.

Judge Anthony Ellul made reference to various comments attributed to Degiorgio, all of them hostile to multiculturalism and persons of black ethnicity, which were published in the International Herald Tribune, the Washington Post and MSNBC.com.

The Court of Appeal said it was of the opinion that Caruana Galizia was “clearly expressing her opinion based on the positions taken by the persons mentioned in the articles, on the subject of immigration in Malta.” It disagreed with the court of first instance's interpretation of her use of the word “fascist” was purely intended to insult, saying that Degiorgio harboured the view that immigrants had no place in Maltese society, and pointing out that he had organised public protests against immigration.

“The beliefs of the plaintiff with regards to immigration are clear from the extracts of the aforementioned articles. Although the use of the word 'fascist' can be seen as harsh, this was simply a critique of the position he had taken, alongside other members of the Alleanza Nazzjonali Repubblikana, on the subject of immigration.”

The judge noted that Caruana Galizia had not stopped at using the term “fascist” but had also given her definition of the term, writing that “Fascism is suspicious of all ‘foreigners’, and minority groups, and regards human rights as dispensable if they do not serve the interests of the nation, or if they are a hindrance to achieving the objectives of the fascist movement.”

This would lead readers to understand how the author had arrived at her value judgment on the plaintiff's views on immigration and that what he and others were saying gave rise to an environment of intolerance towards immigrants.

The European Court had allowed the press to “have recourse to a certain degree of exaggeration, provocation or harshness” in its role as a public watchdog on public debate, the court noted.

Degiorgio's public position on the issue had exposed himself to media scrutiny whether or not he considered himself as a politician or a member of a pressure group, the court said.

The article had also made a distinction between the plaintiff and Norman Lowell and his followers, the court noted, and had not accused Degiorgio of violence but had said that his words had contributed to the culture of violence.