Former Labour MP counters activist’s constitutional case on Caruana Galizia memorial

The former Labour MP Joseph Brincat has weighed in on the controversy that followed the removal of a makeshift memorial to murdered journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, after the Great Siege monument was closed off for restoration and activists’ flowers and candles removed by the Cleansing Department overnight. 

The matter is now the subject of a Constitutional case filed by Occupy Justice activist Emanuel Delia, who is claiming the removal of the memorial breached his fundamental rights. 

But this morning, Brincat filed an application in the acts of that same constitutional case asking to be admitted as a party to it, arguing that: “Emanuel Delia cannot expect that his right is greater than that of the undersigned and many other Maltese, as had been established through official declarations under a multitude of administrations about the Great Siege monument.” 

READ MORE Manuel Delia claims human rights breach over Caruana Galizia memorial clean-up

The Great Siege monument, a masterpiece by Maltese artist Antonio Sciortino, was erected in 1927 to honour the memory of the thousands who died in the great siege of 1565. 

Brincat noted that in 2010, the then deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg had described the monument as one of national importance as well as signifying the “great victory for the safety of Europe at the time.” 

Malta is a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, Brincat pointed out, which stipulates that every country must take legal steps to protect its architectural heritage and monuments. Article 4 of the Convention grants States the right to take steps “to prevent the disfigurement, demolition or dilapidation of protected properties,” with reference to monuments, Brincat said. 

“The undersigned submits, besides all this, that he wishes to rebut with his right to freedom of expression that public spaces are also regulated by the State and not capriciously for the use of an individual as he sees fit and who if not allowed to, says he has no freedom.” 

Cultural heritage is owned by all citizens, Brincat argued, saying that consequently, they had a “right of cultural possession” over the monument which “must not be infringed by the pretext of someone who wishes to change and denature its significance.” Brincat said he could summon a “great number” of Maltese citizens who wanted the monument to remain as it was.