Greening the Constitution

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party –  is in agreement that 50 years after its adoption Malta’s Constitution needs to be updated.  However such an exercise, as emphasised in AD’s 2013 electoral manifesto, should be carried out with the direct involvement of civil society. The Constitution belongs to all of us.

There are a number of issues which require careful consideration. In AD’s 2013 electoral manifesto at least fourteen such issues are identified. They vary in scope from electoral reform to widening the issues in respect of which discrimination is prohibited, by including protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. AD also proposes the introduction of a Constitutional provision in favour of a balanced budget, thereby ensuring that government is forced to discard budget deficits and consequently to control the spiralling public debt.

One very important issue is the need to entrench environmental rights and duties in the Constitution. The proposed Constitutional Convention, supported by AD, should aim at Greening the Constitution. That is, it should aim at addressing environmental rights and duties such that they are spelled out in unequivocal terms.  Environmental rights and duties should as a minimum be spelled out as clearly as property rights in the Constitution. They are worthy of protection just as the rights of individual persons.

Article 9 of the Constitution very briefly states that “The State shall safeguard the landscape and the historical and artistic patrimony of the nation.”  Further, in article 21 of the Constitution we are informed that this (and other safeguards) “shall not be enforceable in a Court” but that this (safeguard) shall be “fundamental to the governance of the country” and that it shall be the aim of the State to apply it in making laws.

It is not conducive to good governance to first declare adherence to specifc safeguards, but then specifically excluding the Courts from ensuring that such safeguards are being observed.

The strategy of announcing principles but then not providing the legislative framework for their implementation was also taken up in environmental legislation. In fact articles 3 and 4 of the 2010 Environment and Development Planning Act  announce a whole list of sound environmental principles. However  in article 5 of the same Act it is then stated that these cannot be enforced in a Court of Law!

When I had the opportunity of discussing the Environment and Development Planning Bill with Mario de Marco (then Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Tourism and the Environment) I had proposed on behalf of the Greens that the declarations  in articles 3 and 4 of the Bill should not be just guiding principles. They ought to be made enforceable by our Courts subject to the introduction of  a suitable transition. Unfortunately Dr de Marco did not take up the Greens proposal.

As things stand today, article 3 of the Environment and Development Planning Act announces very pompously that the government,  as well as every person in Malta, has the duty to protect the environment. Furthermore it is announced that we are duty bound to assist in the taking of preventive and remedial measures to protect the environment and manage resources in a sustainable manner.

Article 4 goes further:  it  states that government is responsible towards present and future generations.  It then goes on to list ten principles which should guide government in its endeavours.  Integrating environmental concerns in decisions on socio-economic and other policies is first on the list. Addressing pollution and environmental degradation through the implementation of the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle follows immediately after.  Cooperation with other governments and entities enshrines the maxim of “think global, act local” as Malta both affects and is affected by environmental impacts wherever they occur.  The fourth guiding principle is the need to disseminate environmental information whilst the fifth one underlines the need of research as a basic requirement of sound environment policy.  The waste management hierarchy is referred to in the sixth principle followed immediately by underlining the requirement to safeguard biological diversity and combatting all forms of pollution.  Article 4 ends by emphasising that the environment is the common heritage and common concern of mankind and underlines the need to provide incentives leading to a higher level of environmental protection.

Proclaiming guiding principles in our Constitution and environmental legislation is not enough. Our Courts should be empowered in order that they are able to ensure that these principles are actually translated into concrete action.   Government should be compelled to act on the basis of Maltese legislation as otherwise it will only act on environmental issues when and if forced to by the European Union as was evidenced in the past nine years.

Greening the Constitution by extending existing environmental provisions and ensuring that they can be implemented will certainly be one of the objectives of the Greens in the forthcoming Constitutional Convention.

published in the Times of Malta 18 May 2013

ILLUM : nuqqas ta’ spazju ?

Fil-gazzetta Illum, ippubblikata illum il-Ħadd 12 ta’ Mejju 2013 ippubblikat kummenti għal mistoqsijiet li staqsiet lil diversi persuni dwar Joseph Muscat u Simon Busuttil.

Il-mistoqsijiet kienu dawn:

1. Kif tħares lejn l-ewwel 50 jum ta’ Joseph Muscat?
2. X’taħseb fuq l-għażla ta’ Simon Busuttil?

Jiena ġejt mitlub il-kummenti tiegħi li tajthom imma ma ġewx ippubblikati kif ippreżentajthom jiena.

Ma nafx jekk hux minħabba nuqqas ta’ spazju.

For the record il-kummenti tiegħi huma dawk riprodotti hawn taħt. Il-parti bl-aħmar tħalliet barra mill-pubblikazzjoni:

Dwar l-għażla ta’ Simon Busuttil bħala Kap tal-PN:

“Huwa biss iż-żmien li jagħtina parir dwar jekk l-elezzjoni ta’ Dr Simon Busuttil bħala Kap tal-PN iġibx bidla, kif ukoll x’tip ta’ bidla, fil-PN. Il-bidliet fil-PN għadhom għaddejjin u mhux magħruf x’ser tkun il-forma finali tagħhom.

Alternattiva Demokratika m’hiex ser toqgħod tispekula dwar x’jista’ jiġri.”

Dwar l-ewwel ħamsin jum tal-Gvern immexxi minn Joseph Muscat :

Fl-ewwel ħamsin jum il-Gvern ta’ Muscat għadu qiegħed jipprova jaġixxi ta’ Gvern, diversi drabi aġixxa ta’ partit politiku. F’ ta’ l-inqas erba’ sitwazzjonijiet aġixxa b’mod diviżiv meta kellu soluzzjonijiet alternattivi li long term kienu jagħtuh riżultati aħjar.

L-ewwel: il-grad ta’ Segretarju Permanenti fil-Ministeri jeżisti biex jassigura kontinwita’ b’mod partikolari meta jkun hemm bidla tal-Gvern. It-tneħħija tal-parti l-kbira tas-Segretarji Permanenti kien żball fl-ewwel ġranet tal-Gvern li seta ġie evitat. Il-parti l-kbira minnhom kienu ser jispiċċaw xorta matul it-18-il xahar li ġejjin, bl-eta. Li stenna ftit kienu jinbidlu xorta bil-kwiet probabilment fi żmien sena.

It-tieni : id-diskors li l-Gvern ħejja għall-President tar-Repubblika kien wieħed partiġġjan u ma għamel l-ebda ġid lill-kariga.

It-tielet: inevitabilment f’dawn il-ħamsin ġurnata saru ħafna ħatriet. Kien hemm diversi minnhom li kienu ta’ natura partiġjana, fl-istess stil tal-gvernijiet immexxija mill-PN.

Ir-raba’: il-ħatra ta’ Franco Debono bħala koordinatur tal-Konvenzjoni Kostituzzjonali kienet waħda diviżiva. Tali ħatra kella issir b’konsultazzjoni mas-socjeta ċivili.

Fost il-miżuri posittivi tal-Gvern hemm il-bidu tal-implementazzjoni tal-proposti elettorali dwar id-drittijiet tal-persuni LGBT  kif ukoll il-ftehim dwar il-kawża fil-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem minn Joanne Cassar liema ftehim ser iwassal għat-dritt ta’ persuna transgender li tiżżewweġ.  AD giet mistiedna u aċċettat li tipparteċipa fil-Kumitat Konsultattiv li qed iħejji l-proposti konkreti għad-drittijiet tal-persuni LGBT. Ġew nominati u diġa qed jieħdu sehem Angele Deguara u Collette Farrugia Bennett biex jirrapprezentaw lill-AD.

Fost il-miżuri negattivi hemm l-inkoraġġiment tal-kaċċa fir-rebbiegħa  u issa jidher li l-Gvern qed jikkunsidra li jesperimenta ukoll bl-insib minkejja li din hu pprojibit mid-Direttivi tal-Unjoni Ewropea kif ukoll skada il-perjodu transitorju stabilit mit-trattat ta’ adezjoni.

Snippets from AD’s electoral manifesto: (18) Sexual Orientation. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transexuals (LGBT).

The following extract is taken verbatim from Chapter 15 of AD’s Electoral Manifesto

Sexual Orientation. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transexuals (LGBT).

There should be full equality between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in every aspect of life. The state should open the institution of civil marriage to same-sex couples and hence provide the same rights and obligations to all couples (irrespective of whether they are heterosexual or of the same sex).

Full equality should also be guaranteed, among others, for the right to IVF treatment and to adoption regardless of sexual orientation and civil status.

There should be a national human right and equality plan ensuring full inclusion of LGBT persons in Maltese society. This plan should be developed following a dialogue with the Maltese LGBT community.

There should be a constitutional amendment by means of which discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity would be prohibited.

The state should immediately recognise the gender identity of persons who have assumed a new gender identity and this should be reflected in the person’s official documents such as identity card and passport. The state should allow these persons to marry.

Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be ratified, and Malta should take a more active role in the promotion of human rights of LGBT

L-Estratt segwenti hu mehud kelma b’kelma mill-Kapitlu 15 tal-Manifest Elettorali ta’ Alternattiva Demokratika

Orjentazzjoni Sesswali.Lesbjani, Gays, Bisesswaliu Transesswali (LGBT).

Għandu jkun hemm ugwaljanza sħiħa bejn koppji tal-istess sess u koppji eterosesswali f’kull aspett tal-hajja. L-istat għandu jiftaħ l-istituzzjoni taż-żwieg ċivili għall-koppji tal-istess sess u għaldaqstant jagħti l-istess drittijiet u obbligi lil kull koppja (kemm dawk eterosesswali kif ukoll dawk tal-istess sess).

Ugwaljanza sħiħa ghandha tkun garantita ukoll, fost oħrajn, għad-dritt għall- IVF u għall-adozzjoni, irrispettivament mill-orjentazzjoni sesswali u l-istat ċivili ta’ dak li jkun.

Għandu jkun hemm pjan nazzjonali għat-tisħiħ tad-drittijiet u l-promozzjoni tal-ugwaljanza tal-persuni LGBT f’kull qasam tal-ħajja. Dan il-pjan għandu jiġi żviluppat bi djalogu mal-komunita’ LGBT.

Għandu jkun hemm emenda fil-kostituzzjoni li permezz tagħha d-diskriminazzjoni fuq bażi ta’ orjentazzjoni sesswali u identita’ tal-generu tiġi ipprojbita.

L-istat għandu immedjatament jagħraf l-identita` tal-ġeneru ta’ persuni li jkunu assummew identita’ ġdida u din għandha tkun riflessa fid-dokumenti uffiċjali tal-persuna bħall-karta tal-identita` u l-passaport. L-istat ghandu jippermetti li dawn il-persuni jiżżewġu.

Għandu jiġi ratifikat Protokol 12 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem u Malta għandha tieħu rwol aktar attiv fil-promozzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-persuni LGBT fuq livell internazzjonali.

Minor footnote to 1980s talks

Much has been written about the meetings between Dom Mintoff and Guido de Marco prior to 1987 on finding ways in which to solve the constitutional crisis resulting from the 1981 perverse electoral results.

During these meetings Mintoff and de Marco undoubtedly also discussed various other matters as they considered appropriate. At one point, I too formed part of their agenda.

It was early in October 1984 and I was carrying out duties of architect and civil engineer at the then Public Works Department. Called to the office of the director, I was informed that, in view of my articles published in newspapers of the Nationalist Party, my employment was being terminated forthwith.

Being without a job was further compounded by the fact that the then Labour government had also withheld my professional warrant.

I initiated human rights proceedings claiming that my right to freedom of expression and protection from discrimination on political grounds had been breached by the Director of Public Works and his minister, Lorry Sant.

The first session of the court case was fixed for early November 1984. Witnesses were heard and submissions made.

Some time in April or May 1985, de Marco called to tell me that he had a message for me from Mintoff. My dismissal from the Public Works Department had cropped up in one of his meetings with Mintoff who had suggested that he would be prepared to take me on board as a civil engineer on the Freeport project, then under his wings and in its early stages.

However, this proposal was subject to the conditions that I had to halt legal proceedings against Sant and, in addition, I had to bind myself not to write any more articles in newspapers.

My response was a clear no.

We met a second time at the request of de Marco, presumably as Mintoff was pressing for an answer. But I did not budge. In view of my refusal, the message was relayed through two alternative routes. De Marco had asked two high-ranking PN officials to persuade me to compromise. Fortunately, they fully understood my position and did not press the matter any further.

On June 27, 1985, just weeks after receiving Mintoff’s message, the case was decided by Mr Justice Joseph Filletti. He concluded that my freedom of expression and my right not to be discriminated against on political grounds were breached by the Director of Public Works. The director, the court ruled, had to shoulder administrative responsibility for the happenings in his department on his own.

Mr Justice Filletti had exonerated the minister!

Subsequent to Mr Justice Filletti’s decision I received a phone call that a senior army officer attached to Mintoff’s office at Kalafrana wanted to speak to me.

I clearly remember that it was an August afternoon in 1985 when I called at his office. This army officer, eventually a colonel, told me that I should not count my chickens yet because, while I had a favourable first decision from the law courts, it was inevitable that it would be reversed on appeal.

He prodded me to accept Mintoff’s proposal and stop legal proceedings. I told the colonel that I had already refused the proposal and that I had no intention of changing my mind.

In the meantime, the Constitutional Court had fixed dates for hearings of the appeals submitted. I myself had submitted an appeal because, in my view, the minister should have been found responsible together with the director for breach of human rights. Proof had been submitted that the instructions for my dismissal had been issued by the minister himself.

The Constitutional Court decided the case on January 29, 1986. It concluded that Sant had, in fact, issued the instructions for my dismissal himself. It further acknowledged that proof of the minister’s direct involvement had been submitted through the evidence of various witnesses.

The Constitutional Court decided that both Sant and the director were responsible for political discrimination.

As to freedom of expression, the Constitutional Court reversed the first court’s decision and concluded that those in public employment sign away their rights of freedom of expression. By accepting public employment, the Constitutional Court held that you renounce your freedom of expression.

As it turned out, it seems that the colonel was most probably bluffing after all.

It was clear to me that Mintoff was trying to find a way out for Sant.

When my name cropped up in the de Marco-Mintoff talks it seems that I was considered as a pawn that could be easily sacrificed in the quest for the larger prize.

Fortunately, matters developed differently in this minor footnote to the de Marco/Mintoff talks.

published in The Times (Malta) 8th September 2012

Dom: a giant surrounded by pygmies

Much has been written in the past days on Dom Mintoff. On his service to the nation. On his values. On his methods. On his achievements.

In what we write we ought to be respectful. Not just to Dom, the man and his memory. We must also respect  ourselves. We must be factual.

We cannot respect the man  if we have no self respect!

His first positive contribution was in the development of the tools of  social solidarity,  determined to ensure that all had access to the basic essentials. He did this initially with Sir Paul Boffa his predecessor as Labour Leader. It was Boffa who laid the foundations of the welfare state through the introduction of Old Age Pensions and Income Tax to finance them!  Years earlier Boffa had prodded Gerald Strickland through the Compact to construct St Luke’s Hospital.  Boffa has been sidelined in the past 50 years when in reality it was he who should get the credit for founding the welfare state in Malta. Dom built on Boffa’s solid foundations, widening and deepening social services in the process.

His second positive was his determination that independence be translated into Maltese absolute control of the islands and their strategic infrastructure. This contrasted with Borg Olivier’s more gradual approach.  His negotiations shocked the nation as it was the first time that a Maltese politician stood up and spoke what they had in mind. In his last mass meeting before the 1971 general elections, held  at Marsa,  Mintoff had stated in very clear terms what he had in mind. It was time for Britain to pay up or pack up.

Lord Carrington then Defence Secretary in Edward Heath’s Cabinet states in his memoirs that negotiating with Dom was tough business. He realised “that there was also calculation in every Mintoff mood.”  Mintoff’s moods noted Carrington, would alternate “between periods of civilised charm and spasms of strident and hysterical abuse.”

Dom also opened a third front. He rightly felt the need for a separation of Church and State. It was, and still is  an area which requires much attention. It was much worse 50 years ago with an unelected archbishop-prince wielding political power unwittingly aiding  the colonial masters. Divide and rule was the British policy in its colonies. This front has been the cause of various scars (political and social), still not sufficiently healed.  It was violence from unexpected quarters which multiplied the political problems which each government has had to tackle since.

In his endeavours Dom was undoubtedly influenced by his direct experiences.  His witnessing of abject poverty during his childhood, his youth and immediate post war years formed his vision for developing the welfare state which had been painfully plotted by Sir Paul Boffa.

Having a foreign power controlling any square metre of significance on the islands was too much to bear for someone with Dom’s temperament. His father’s employment in the service of Lord Louis Mountbatten undoubtedly added to the significance of it all and to his determination to make a clean sweep.

It would be dishonest to ignore the above.

It would be however similarly dishonest to ignore the fact that his stewardship was also characterised by arrogance and bullying. It was characterised by organs of the state which sought to protect abusive behaviour. The long list of cases wherein Dom’s government and his most trusted Ministers were found guilty of infringing human rights is there for all to see. None of them was ever forced to resign. This is also part of Dom’s contribution to the development of  post 1964 Malta.

Anyone ever tried to identify the number of victims, some with a one way ticket to l-Addolorata Cemetery?

Former Air Malta chairman Albert Mizzi in an interview carried in The Sunday Times on March 25, 2012 stated: “I remember one time when someone mentioned something to him about corruption. He turned to me and said, ‘is it true?’ I replied: ‘That what’s people are saying’. His response was: ‘What can I do if that person has helped me to build up the party? Can I take action against him?’ You see, this is small Malta.”

That is Dom, the giant surrounded by pygmies: those who helped him build his party and then proceeded to squeeze it dry until the pips squealed.

Respecting Dom also means self-respect. Respect  the facts.  When this is done we can give the man his due.

originally published at di-ve.com

On this blog you can read the followinfg additional posts on Dom MINTOFF :

21st August 2012 : Dom’s legacy

21st August 2012 : Dom Mintoff

22nd June 2012 : Dom Mintoff fuq in-Net TV.

5th May 2012 : Dom Mintoff : a political bully.

23rd April 2012 : Thanks O Lord for giving us DOM.

1st April 2012: Should we thank Dom?

Thanks O Lord for giving us DOM

After that superficial film “Dear Dom” has been showing for some time, given that a large number of Maltese citizens are shocked as to the content of the said film (how dare he) I would humbly suggest an alternative based on the following 6 points :

1. Dom was God’s gift to Malta. We should light candles and praise the Lord for this gift.
2. Human rights in Malta know their first pronouncement to Dom who was their most steadfast defender. The Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights is adequate recognition of the effort made!
3. The media should thank their lucky stars that Dom was Prime Minister as he entrenched freedom of expression and completely removed the Laws of Libel. The media during his time was as free as can be.
4. Dom led the first transparent Government in Malta: the media could ask anything, and they had the information at hand before even asking.
5. The shareholders of the National Bank of Malta should thank their lucky stars that they had a staunch defender in Dom Mintoff. If anyone else had been Prime Minister he wouldn’t give a fuck about their rights (jigi jitnejjek mill-Kostituzzjoni). Anyone less serious would have removed their limited liability to have them face the music. But Dom, he  was no bully. He defended the hard working citizen.
6. The civil service should thank Dom for making their period of service a memorable one. Transfers on political grounds were history during the Dom Prime Ministership. Everybody got his due. Promotions were never withheld to those who were not Labour Party lackeys. The more you were critical of Dom Mintoff and his government the more you were respected.  Dom even discriminated against Labour Party supporters to ensure that those supporting the PN and Mabel Strickland got the highest appointments in the Civil Service.

Should we thank Dom ?

Yana Mintoff Bland has demanded that her father Dom be shown the respect which she claims he deserves.

The Times in its comments quoted Yana Mintoff Bland as objecting to her father  Dom Mintoff being  “shown as being partisan and interested only in his supporters.”

It was only last week that The Sunday Times reporting an interview with Albert Mizzi former Chairman of Air Malta quoted Mr Mizzi as saying the following about her father  :

“I remember one time when someone mentioned something to him about corruption. He turned to me and said, is it true? I replied: ‘That what’s people are saying’. His response was: ‘What can I do if that person has helped me to build up the party? Can I take action against him?’ You see, this is small Malta.”

Being a Mintoff supporter in those days paid huge dividends.

I have already in the past put on record my own stories about pressures exerted by Dom Mintoff through a PN politician as well as through an army official for me to withdraw a human rights case in Malta’s Constitutional Court against one of his Cabinet Ministers. I did not budge but the pressure kept mounting. And on top of all that I even had my professional warrant as an architect withheld for 4 years after graduating. A fact also confirmed by the Injustces Commission which investigated my claims.

My experiences are just one of the many which those who disagreed with or criticised Dom’s government and methods suffered repeatedly.

A few did not survive to recount their ordeal as they paid with their lives. It that sense I may be lucky, but that is nothing to thank Dom about.

Insellem lil Perit René Buttigieg

Id-deċiżjoni tal-bieraħ tal-Imħallef Gino Camilleri dwar il-mod kif  l-ex  Ministru Lorry Sant kien jittratta lil impjegati fid-Dipartiment tax-Xogħolijiet tfakkarni ħafna affarijiet.

Illum  imma hu floku li nsellem lil René li m’għadux magħna u li kien wieħed milli sofra. Sofra għax kien jieħu l-attivita’ trejdunionistika tiegħu (f’isem il-Periti tal-Public Works) bis-serjeta’.  Kien hemm oħrajn li sofrew fil-kwiet għax ma kellomx il-kuraġġ tiegħu. Dawn qalgħu transfer wara l-ieħor f’kull rokna ta’ Malta u Għawdex għax il-Ministru ma riedx jarahom b ‘għajnejh.

Quddiem din it-tbatija kien hemm il-kuntrast ta’ dawk li kienu jinkinaw quddiem il-Ministru u li meta inbidel il-Gvern bdew jinkinaw quddiem ta’ warajh.

Jiġini quddiem għajnejja bħalissa wieħed partikolari, Perit li kien benvist mill-Ministru Sant. Fost l-inkarigi li tah darba minnhom bagħtu l–Libya biex isegwi l-passi ta’ delegazzjoni mibgħuta minn KMB allura Prim Ministru fuq xogħol ta’ kostruzzjoni. Informazzjoni li ksibt minn persuni viċin id-delegazzjoni fissruli kif kontinwament kien qiesu d-dell tad-delegazzjoni biex ikun jista’ jirrapport lura dwar ma kull min iltaqgħet.

Imma dawn it-tip ta’ nies dejjem isaltnu. Għax wara l-1987 irnexxielu jservi ħafna lis-suċċessur tal-Ministru Sant.

No” to unacceptable Gheddafi blackmail

                                            unedited AD Press Release

Alternattiva Demokratika -The Green Party objects to the recent Gheddafi
blackmailing requests and calls upon Prime Minister Gonzi and Opposition Leader Muscat to stand up to such tactics.

Prof Arnold Cassola, Alternattiva Demokratika Spokesperson on EU and
International Affairs, stated: “It is totally unacceptable that Muammar
Gheddafi, whilst visiting Italy, has urged Europeans to convert to Islam. As a
political leader of his country Mr Gheddafi should understand that, in civilised democracies, we do not mix politics with religion”.

Arnold Cassola continued: “Gheddafi has also asked the EU to give him at least five billion euros a year, or else – he threatened – Europe could become
Africanized, through migration. The European Union should not give in to this backmail and indeed should insist on Gheddafi and Libya signing and ratifying the Geneva convention on human rights instead”.

“As for the Maltese Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, it is about
time that – rather than imitating Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi in his
servilism towards Gheddafi- they speak up against the disrespect shown by Libya to basic human rights”, concluded Arnold Cassola.

Patrick Attard’s dismissal : back to the 1970s

Alternattiva Demokratika – The Green Party notes that the employment of Dr Ing. Patrick Attard has been terminated after he commented on The Times online with reference to a Gozo News item. Attard was critical of the manner in which the Church in Gozo is effecting Nadur farmers through contamination of a water source which is vital for their livelihood.

AD PRO Ralph Cassar said:”The Malta Resources Authority has terminated the employment of Attard on the pretext on an inexistent breach of professional secrecy. Attard has himself declared that his service to the MRA was in no way connected to water matters. It follows clearly that the dismissal of Patrick Attard is an attack on the right of freedom of expression : a throwback to the dark 70s and 80s when human rights in Malta were more observed in the breach.”

AD appeals to the Malta Resources Authority to undo the damage done immediately by reinstating Patrick Attard. An employee cannot be dismissed without prior warning and without being given the chance to defend himself. This goes against basic ethics.

Communications and IT spokesperson Henrik Piski added:”The Commissioner of Data Protection is asked to investigate the matter to find out how the information about the electronic activities of Patrick Attard have been transmitted to third parties without his consent.”