In the wake of the Lowell March 27th Judgement, as after all foreseen, one sentence stood particularly out in page 116 of that Judgement now appealed from.

The particular sentence translated itself as implying that the Judgement should serve as an axing deterrent that the accused be very careful as of that moment to evaluate the way and manner his thoughts,opinions,expressions,writings are to be communicated to third parties.

In this case,however,who are the third parties.Should the latter dictate to the originator as to what should be thought and how is this to be communicated?In the subject matter,therefore,of FREE SPEECH, who are the teachers and who are the students ?

Hence before more public opinion is diffused on this very important theme in a Democracy [though again one has to analyze here what type of Democracy one is actually relating to ......] ,one crucial point must be emphasized: That is knowing the facts,the actual facts before as is occurring one goes scalp hunting without being aware of what scalps are truly being hunted!

In a normal healthy democracy, any citizen should feel completely at ease to speak out his mind without fearing repercussions of one sort or another.In Malta, this is certainly not the Case - take by way of example the illegal and abusive censoring of an innocuous mere five-minute broadcast by Norman Lowell one week from the March 8th General Elections by that constitutional guardian of Free Speech,namely our Broadcasting Authority.

A General Elections Candidate was treated worse than a nobody: ( a ) a mere five minute broadcast to expose his political agenda; ( b ) this was to be recorded as indeed it was on Friday, February 29th, 2008; (c) broadcast was to be transmitted on Saturday, March 1st,2008,once,following the Main News Programme on Malta Television [concurrent with Radio Malta].

Incidentally this `democratic exercise of free speech and equal opportunities ` was granted to another four candidates besides Lowell. All four 5-minute broadcasts were diffused,but when it came to Lowell`s an announcement was made that his broadcast had been censored by the BA following legal advice given!

Lowell was never even informed [ no excuse for that - if for nothing mere civilized courtesy to a Political Candidate sticking out his neck for the country,irrespective of whether one agrees with him or not ]; his legal counsel ( who also happened to be a political candidate ) was never approached on the issue { the arrogance of autocratic power by persons who are placed there by the two main political parties }; consultations were held with nobody [ what impartiality and transparency !! ] except the political sovereign was insulted by being told that on legal advice ( how convenient ) Lowell`s Broadcast was not to be broadcast : end of matter !

Hence in this startlingly abusive illustration,the Broadcasting Authority [ observe names are never mentioned - omerta` to preserve the self-appointed elite ! ] became our teacher on Free Speech: WE the Political Sovereign who are paying the Broadcasting Authority to preserve our Democracy became the students to listen and obey without any contestation directives as to what we should hear or not hear - we idiotic fools that must be taught without cross arguing as to what is acceptable to us to listen to or not!

Clearly this cannot be adhered to by all students of free speech.The Broadcasting Authority in the Internet Age has failed abusively to be our democratic watchdog: just compare the savagery of utterances in a dirty political campaign waged between the two elders beamed and broadcast to one and all throughout a lousy political campaign which yielded a non-people`s government!


No one has a right to impose dictums in a democracy as to the limits of Free Speech which is a sacred fundamental right. If the Law is violated,such as in Lowell`s Case, the alleged breach of Articles 72 & 82A of our Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta [ Criminal Code ] ,then whoever accuses must limit submissions to prove beyond reasonable doubt that those Articles were in fact criminally breached.I shall not go further as an Appeal is pending and therefore the Case is still sub iudice : hence why it is a fallacy to claim that Lowell has been deprived of any of his fundamental rights as a free citizen of our isle.


Nor is it the duty of a Criminal Court to dictate as to how a citizen should deport himself [ the conflict between Law & Morality ]: the Court must adjudge OBJECTIVELY as to whether or not it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that an accused is indeed guilty.

Beyond that there is the adage which we must respect that legum servis sumus , UT liberi esse possimus, namely that in being servants of the law, we are indeed free. Thus we have a reply to our basic question in that it is only the Law that is our Guide to Free Speech - nobody else in a democratic society has any right,power or authority to prevent an individual from uttering or stating what he thinks,or what opinions he holds or how he desires to communicate or express himself.If we violate this principle, we cease to be a Democracy!

Emmy Bezzina
107, West Street,
VALLETTA. VLT 1535.
00356 99493404
emmybezzina@onvol.net