Significance of national monument cannot be changed, minister says

● Banner about Great Siege monument erected on site

Justice Minister Owen Bonnici defended his order for the removal of the Daphne Caruana Galizia memorial from the Great Siege Monument, highlighting that it is a national monument connected to a national feast, and its significance cannot be changed.

The Great Siege Monument is a national monument which is also linked to a national holiday; it is not a monument to Daphne Caruana Galizia, the minister said when asked by The Malta Independent to justify his actions.

Activists have been replacing the memorial every time it is taken down for the better part of the past year. More recently, the memorial was also taken off the hoarding surrounding the monument.

The minister said that there are two points he wanted to make. Firstly, the items placed at the foot of the monument had caused damage to the monument, and that on Victory Day he asked for the restoration works, “which were already planned,” to go ahead. He said the monument was closed off, “as happens during the restoration of any monument, so that the workers could conduct their work and clean up the national monument.”

He said that this is a national monument tied to a national feast and that restoration work by the Restoration Directorate began on Monday.

The second point, he said, surrounds the question about permanency. He said that there is the question regarding the appropriation of the national monument in a way that changes its meaning to something else.

He said there is rule of law in Malta and that everyone must abide by it. He said that all people who form part of Occupy Justice and the other groups have the liberty to speak and express themselves, “doing all they feel they need to do, but when that activity ends, the national monument needs to remain a national monument.”

The Great Siege national monument which celebrates Malta’s 1565 victory against the Ottoman Empire yesterday morning was covered up by a banner showing the government’s plans to restore it.

This newsroom told the minister that the memorial last Saturday was placed on the hoarding around the monument not on it, since the monument was closed off, and that a government banner has since been placed on the hoarding, which states that it is the Great Siege Monument. The police had also gone on site on a number of occasions and did not take down the memorial to the slain journalist, an indication that no law had been broken.

In reaction to this, the minister again said that it is a national monument, and “not a village monument that one must travel to in order to see”, and is situated in a prime Valletta site and reiterated that it is associated with a national feast, he said, adding that it must be respected as such.

He said that in a democratic society that respects the law, a balance must be found where people can express themselves and say what they want to say in the strongest way possible, “as the protesters had every opportunity to do. But there must be agreement on the concept that there cannot be a change in the nature of the monument... If there is a wish for the creation of a memorial for someone, in this case Daphne Caruana Galizia, there is a law and process which must be obeyed. We must obey the law in this country in a proportionate, reasoned, balanced way, and I think that is what we are doing as government.”

This newsroom pointed out the fact that he, as the Justice Minister, in ordering the removal of a memorial of an assassinated journalist who has become a symbol of free speech internationally, given the international media coverage her assassination received, is sending a very bad single, as though it is an assault on freedom of expression.

The minister disagreed, saying that he does not agree that this spot is a memorial for Daphne Caruana Galizia, again stating it is the Great Siege Monument.

“If a section of the population want to create a memorial for Daphne Caruana Galizia they should not take the law into their own hands, and say that this space is theirs from that point on. There is a legal process; one applies and as in other cases there are the authorities to decide. That is the rule of law and we must respect it. I understand there is the free speech question and so every time there was a protest, banners etc. They were left to occur without any difficulty but when the activity ends, as happens in every other case, there is a clearance of whatever is left after the activity.”

‘Large section of the population is hurt by her writings’

Asked if government is considering commemorating a memorial to the slain journalist, he said that this issue requires mature discussion arguing that a topic like this is controversial as while there is a section of the population admires the slain journalist, “there is a large section of the population who are hurt by all that Daphne Caruana Galizia wrote about them. On this point I think we need a discussion in this country on the way forward, one which is mature and objective, keeping the in mind the need for one’s liberties and the need to obey the law.”

Asked whether his ordering the removal of the monument has to do with his personal dislike of the murdered journalist, he said that he will not go into the merits of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s writings. He said that he has an obligation to protect national monuments given his role as culture minister. He mentioned that there is no doubt that the activity there damaged the national monument, and said everyone agreed that the damage had to be fixed and that the monument be protected.

He also again highlighted the change of the national monument into something else by a section of the public. He said that this is an issue which needs to be looked at calmly and serenely. He said there are procedures for setting up a memorial, and that taking up public space arbitrarily and taking the law into your own hands is not a preferred option in a democratic country which respects the rule of law.

Again pressed to state, yes or no, whether this had anything to do with his personal dislike for the slain journalist, he said that the way he tackled this issue the past months, he called the murder ‘barbarous’ and said that it shocked Maltese society. He said that government’s commitment to lead the investigations forward shows that “we are all able to distinguish between our personal understanding of her writings and need to take the correct decisions in our democracy.”

Ministry’s actions ‘represent an unequivocal repression of free and peaceful political and personal expression’

In a statement after government covered the hoarding around the monument with a banner indicating that it is the site of the Great Siege Monument, the Aditus Foundation said that the Justice Ministry’s actions in relation to what the foundation called the ‘Daphne Memorial’ in Valletta are “utterly shameful and reprehensible”.

“They represent an unequivocal repression of free and peaceful political and personal expression. These are fundamental human rights boldly enshrined in Malta’s Constitution and part of the human rights regime Malta so proudly subscribes to,” the foundation said.

The Ministry’s justification for its actions – to safeguard national monuments – is unacceptable and a clear populist attempt at ignoring basic legal standards, especially since no damage to the Great Siege Monument was ever alleged or demonstrated, the foundation said.

“Furthermore, the Ministry may comfortably rely on other less intrusive laws for the protection of our national heritage, without acting in such a repressive and childish manner. We therefore urge the Minister for Justice, Culture and Local Government to immediately refrain from these undemocratic tactics and to simply allow the public and peaceful demonstration of opinions and views that he might not be comfortable with.

“This is not asking for too much, just for the peace of mind that we still live in a safe and functioning democracy,” Neil Falzon (aditus foundation Director) said.

PN reaction

In a statement, the Nationalist Party said it considered Bonnici’s action as a sign of lack of respect towards freedom of expression.

It is unacceptable that the minister uses government workers to censure and intimidate Maltese citizens who have a right to protest.

In a democratic country, the government does its best to ensure that all citizens’ rights are respected.