Likening a person to “a whore” does not mean that the person is indeed a prostitute but implies that one’s behaviour is vulgar, the defence counsel for a Facebook commentator argued in court on Thursday in libel proceedings instituted by Parliamentary Secretary Rosianne Cutajar.

Ms Cutajar had sued Godfrey Leone Ganado over Facebook comments he posted on the Facebook page of Rachel Antoinette Williams, who had subsequently gone along with them.

Ms Cutajar's lawyer, Edward Gatt, explained that the issue revolved around the term ‘prostitute’, which, he said, was “an uncomfortable and unkind adjective" that sounded too harsh even within the ambit of court.

In one of the posts, Mr Leone Ganado wrote that: “However, HAMALLI, prostitutes and call girls, have a right to be represented in Parliament.”

Lawyer Andrew Borg Cardona, representing Mr Leone Ganado, said the posts were not defamatory but amounted to fair comment “in the context of the applicant’s behaviour with particular reference to previous publications about her and/or by her and /or with her consent.”

Dr Gatt said Mr Leone Ganado should have had the decency of saying that it was a slip of the tongue. But instead, he had rubbed salt on the wound, indicating Cutajar as being a representative of prostitutes in Parliament.

The term 'prostitute' was the one that hurt a woman most, Dr Gatt said. “What if that adjective had to be attributed to a member of Leone Ganado’s own family!”

As for Ms Williams, who is also being sued, he said she had evidently gone along with Mr Leone Ganado’s comments, never telling him to stop.

He insisted that the court ought to take a firm stance and send out a message, even in so far as liquidation of damages was concerned. This, he said, was not a one-off remark but a system of conduct. The MP had long been putting up with such comments by the respondents who showed a persistently cheeky attitude.

Replying, Dr Borg Cardona said Ms Cutajar had only reacted in respect of the respondents, who were political adversaries. Comments in similar vein by third parties had not prompted legal action by the MP.

Mr Leone Ganado’s comments, no matter how insulting or vulgar, did not amount to defamation in terms of law. Likening a person to a whore did not mean that the person was indeed a prostitute but implied that one’s behaviour was vulgar. The comments were to be read in the whole sequence of events.

Moreover, all have a right to be represented in Parliament. Ironically, Ms Cutajar’s portfolio now covered equality….remarked Dr Borg Cardona.

“I can’t believe you’re saying this!!” Ms Cutajar loudly interjected before being silenced by the court.

Dr Borg Cardona said the law on libel had changed over the past two years. Defamation now needed proof of “serious harm to reputation.”

Freedom of expression included the right to be rude, insulting and vulgar. This freedom could only to be reined in when serious harm to a person’s reputation existed.

Ms Cutajar could not claim serious harm to her reputation when she had not taken action against third party comments, said Dr Borg Cardona, adding that upholding her claim would effectively produce an “undesirable chilling effect” on others who would have second thoughts when commenting in public.

The case was put off for judgment.

Lawyer Mark Vassallo also assisted Ms Cutajar.