Public Watchdogs And MEPs ‘Appalled’ At Maltese Government’s Call To Spy On Journalists
Malta is supporting the inclusion of a clause in the first European law aimed at protecting media freedom that would legitimise spying on journalists, and the people are “appalled”.
“No democratic government should think in this way. But especially a government of a state found responsible for the killing of a journalist,” Media Reform Initiative wrote in an official statement.
The European Media Freedom Act is aimed at protecting journalists and media institutions, including by prohibiting state surveillance of journalists, their families, and employees. However, Malta is lobbying for the inclusion of a clause that would authorise the surveillance of journalists in the EU in the name of national security.
This is the clause: “This Article is without prejudice to the Member States’ responsibility for safeguarding national security.” It’s essentially saying that when a member state decides that its national security is threatened, the government is authorised to surveil public watchdogs.
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation pointed out that the wording of the legal text is broad, meaning that, if implemented, the government would be able to “spy on journalists in circumstances that are undefined”. In addition to this, the organisation added, that it does not provide safeguards against abuse.
As it stands, Malta’s Security Services Act already doesn’t protect journalists’ sources, so, as Nationalist MEP David Casa explained, politicians can approve warrants for the interception of citizens’ communications without judicial approval or oversight.
The sources of journalists have been deemed one of the “basic conditions for press freedom” by the European Court of Human Rights… let that sink in.
“This state of affairs is all the more worrying in the context of the rule of law collapse Malta has experienced over the last years,” Casa said in an official statement.
“The public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia has already indicated that it is time to change the way that warrants for surveillance are issued. This vulnerability whereby the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister have the power to surveil citizens must cease.”
This power, he said, should be in the hands of the judiciary alone and it should only be granted after “due consideration of legal constraints”.
“If surveillance is allowed, then it must come with the most stringent and robust safeguards that protect the crucial principle of the protection of sources and the necessity not to interfere with their investigative work.”
“However we know all too well the abysmal track record of the current Maltese Government when it comes to respect for journalists.”
Casa went on to urge the government to act immediately to change the current law and in the meantime, it should also withdraw its support for the proposed legal text for the European Media Freedom Act.
“It is a very flimsy excuse to wait for, and then attempt to undermine European legislation in place of actually bolstering the safeguards necessary against arbitrary government. Time and time again, the Labour Government shows how committed it is to clinging onto power irrespective of how draconian the means.”
Malta shares its sentiments with Italy, France, Finland, Greece, Cyprus, and Sweden.
Meanwhile, the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation had a similar call for Malta to withdraw its support for this proposal.
The lawyer that runs organisation’s legal clinic for journalists, Therese Comodini Cachia, said: “Safeguarding national security through surveillance could only be justified, on a case-by-case basis, on matters unrelated to journalists’ work and which do not result in access to journalists’ sources, and then only if there are relevant and sufficient reasons to substantiate the intrusion as necessary in a democratic society and as directly related to the protection of national security which is restrictively interpreted.”
Similarly, the Media Reform Initiative issued its formal support of the call by Istitut tal-Ġurnalisti Maltin for the government to explain itself and assure that it’s not their policy that any law should allow them to spy on journalists.
“After yesterday’s ruling of the Constitutional Court that admonished the government for restricting access to journalists, breaching the fundamental right to free expression, and using archaic regulations and a tyrannical policy of ‘l’etat c’est moi’, we would expect the Maltese government today to demonstrate a commitment to free speech and free journalism,” Media Reform Initiative said.
“Journalists and their sources must be and must feel free of government oversight and control if they are to do the job they are required to do for a functioning democracy.”
Let’s not forget the countries that began or solidified their authoritarian escapade with restrictions on media freedoms: Hungary, Poland, Argentina, Russia, the Philippines, and Brazil – just to name a few.
The action was co-financed by the European Union in the frame of the European Parliament’s grant programme in the field of communication. The European Parliament was not involved in its preparation and is, in no case, responsible for or bound by the information or opinions expressed in the context of this action. In accordance with applicable law, the authors, interviewed people, publishers or programme broadcasters are solely responsible. The European Parliament can also not be held liable for direct or indirect damage that may result from the implementation of the action.
Do you agree with Malta’s choice to support the implementation of this clause?
READ NEXT: Man At Risk Of Dying After Vehicle Collision In San Pawl il-Baħar
