.png)
Updated: Health Minister denies allegations of favouring priests
Following media reports that Health Minister Joe Cassar was the government minister who testified “in favour” of the priests charged with sexually abusing children, Cassar denies taking any preferential position.
9 January 2011, 12:00am
Miriam Dalli
Miriam Dalli
1 min read
A statement sent by the Department of Information (DOI) said that Cassar never took any preferential stand in favour of the accused.
“He was called to testify as a witness, through a Court order, on a person who he was following as a psychiatric patient before he became parliamentary secretary and minister.”
The statement says Cassar’s testimony was a result of his profession as a psychiatrist. “As opposed to what has been reported, Joe Cassar never took any stand [with regards to the accused]. Cassar answered to questions made in the presence of the accused and one of the alleged victims.”
The media reports followed a letter sent to Pope Benedict XVI by the priest sex abuse victims, and published on La Repubblica, in which they claimed that “in Malta church, political power and the judiciary are all one of the same thing… so much so that even a minister is testifying in court in favour of the priests."
The press have not been able to cover the court proceeding. The priest's legal counsel managed to obtain a ban on any reporting. This mornings edition of MaltaToday reported the news story that appeared in La Repubblica. However MaltaToday chose not to mention Joe Cassar by name - as the minister called to testify in his capacity as a psychiatrist.
Miriam Dalli joined MaltaToday.com.mt in 2010 becoming assistant editor f...
Michael Gauci •
"The press have not been able to cover the court proceeding. The priest's legal counsel managed to obtain a ban on any reporting".
And why would they do that I wonder?
Priscilla Darmenia •
If the Minister replied to questions put to him in court about alleged child abusers, in the time that he was a practitioner, why are the media and accusers accusing him of favouring the accused?
Do the media and the accusers expect witnesses not to reply to questions in a truthful way? Or do they expect the witness to reply in a music melody sweet to their ears and not what the witness knows about the question put to him?
