In Monday’s debate in the European Parliament, the demand for justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia had cross-party support, even from the one non-Maltese Socialist MEP who spoke. As for the four Labour MEPs, they know better than the rest.
The MEPs were debating a motion that will be voted on tonight. It acknowledges the reforms that the Labour government has enacted but expresses concern about how truly meaningful and honest they are.
The public inquiry was clear. The Maltese state is politically responsible for Caruana Galizia’s assassination because the crimes she revealed were not investigated. The high stakes involved in the corruption endangered her life because she became the only obstacle facing the crooks.
Furthermore, the state and Labour media made her a figure of partisan hate, in part as an attempt to undermine the credibility of her investigations.
‘Justice for Daphne’, therefore, cannot just be a matter of catching those criminally responsible for her assassination. It’s also about investigating her revelations. She was mocked and demeaned about their veracity.
Since then, her exposure of Pilatus Bank, the Panama Papers, the Electrogas power station and the hospitals giveaway has received support from the public inquiry, the auditor general and even the US government.
The EP’s motion notes that, despite the government’s words, there is no evidence of police action against the key figures named in the various scandals. For them, impunity reigns still.
And that’s apart from the disturbing lack of cooperation with European authorities, on arrest warrants and prosecutions, noted by these authorities themselves.
As for protection for any journalist who wants to follow in Caruana Galizia’s footsteps, good luck with that. Since the assassination, Malta’s press freedom has tumbled 31 places in the world rankings, a precipitous fall that corresponds to journalists’ own perception.
The motion notes that, for all its vaunted reform of the media law, the government is still exercising a chilling effect on journalists.
Ministers no longer undertake multiple, financially crippling SLAPP lawsuits; instead, government agencies make obtaining information a huge financial risk by obliging media organisations to fight dozens of expensive cases in court (even though their right to information has been affirmed by state authorities).
The EP motion lays it all out, enumerated, item by item. You’d think the four Labour MEPs, who know better than their colleagues, would target specific items and burst their colleagues’ illusions.
Think again.
Josianne Cutajar asked her colleagues to be objective. But she didn’t challenge the objectivity of a single, specific, critical claim in the motion.
Alex Agius Saliba dismissed the motion as recycled but didn’t say whether the specific concerns are still valid. Instead, he asked why other countries were also not being discussed.
Since the assassination, Malta’s press freedom has tumbled 31 places in the world rankings- Ranier Fsadni
Hopefully, someone later gently pulled him aside and whispered the answer. Other EU countries have seen journalists subject to hate campaigns and killed while investigating high-level corruption. But only in Malta have troll farms been linked directly to the ruling political party. Only in Malta has the state been found politically responsible for the killing.
Cyrus Engerer breezed over the specific concerns. He said that the EP should be getting together to address partisan hate. But isn’t that what the EP is doing with its motion?
MEPs can be as partisan and petty as anyone in their bickering. But this motion has brought them together.
While denouncing ‘hate’, Engerer peddled partisan propaganda for all he was worth. The only ‘partisan hate’ he identified was this: when he attended the first vigil for Caruana Galizia after her assassination, he was made to feel unwelcome. Oh.
Could that have had anything to do with the little fact that, only a few months previously, his political party had stuck a target on her back by plastering her face on billboards? The public inquiry has since confirmed that actions like that were a major factor in endangering her life.
While saying we need to transcend partisanship, Engerer labelled the vigil, a civil society gathering, as partisan. Yet, since 2017, there have been occasions when certain Nationalist politicians were made to feel unwelcome at the vigils. So, non-partisan after all? Not according to Alfred Sant, who told his fellow MEPs that they were being taken in by the smears of “right-wing splinter groups”. Now you know, folks: if you glare at a Labour politician, you’re partisan; if you glare at a Nationalist, you’re a splinter group.
The wide range of speakers, which included the far left, the Greens and social liberals, weren’t having any of it. They were seeing how government critics are damned no matter what they do.
It wasn’t the only instance where Labour actually strengthened the case of its critics. Sophie in ‘t Veld, a Dutch liberal, reminded her colleagues that Joseph Muscat’s lawyers had written to MEPs advising them about what they could and could not say.
She told Muscat what he could do with his letters. Presumably, proof positive that she’s a right-winger. Or perhaps a sorry dupe, despite having visited Malta several times.
Engerer says we should honour Daphne by having open hearts and open minds. Does he have enough of an open mind to agree with Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca that Labour owes the nation an apology given what the public inquiry revealed? Does he think Robert Abela should honour Daphne?
If he can’t give a straight answer, his words are cheap. As in ‘t Veld said, if you want national unity, politicians should lead by example.