Government-Backed Book Dedicated to Daphne: References to Labour Supporters’ Suffering in the Sixties Deleted
Paul P. Borg’s Facebook post deserves attention. One of Malta’s leading authors, Borg has contributed to our literature through short stories, powerful novels and works exploring Selmun and its community. His writing connects literary expression with local history and the experiences of ordinary people.
He has now publicly accused those responsible for an English-language anthology of censoring the biographical note he supplied.
Borg is among the contributors to The Book of Valletta, published by the British publisher Comma Press in collaboration with Malta’s National Book Council. According to his post, the anthology is dedicated to the memory of Daphne Caruana Galizia. He explicitly states that he has no objection to that dedication. Neither do I. His objection concerns how those responsible treated his own words.
Borg says that the biographical note he was asked to provide was substantially altered and that the following passage was deliberately omitted:
“… (Borg’s) works depict times when freedom of expression and political beliefs in a predominantly Christian society were literally killed by the imposition of mortal sin, when learning was equated to eternal damnation, and when the vernacular language was oppressed.”
This passage explains the historical experiences that inform his writing. It recalls, in particular, Malta’s political and religious conflict of the 1960s: the confrontation involving the Labour Party and the Church, and the Nationalist Party’s place within that political landscape.
Removing such a passage changes how an author and his work are presented to readers. It removes an explanation of the historical pressures against which that writing developed.
On the account Borg has given, I regard this as censorship. An author’s interpretation of Malta’s past should not be erased merely because it is uncomfortable or challenges the version of history preferred by those responsible for a publication.
There is also an obvious irony. A publication dedicated to a journalist associated with the defence of freedom of expression is now the subject of a censorship complaint by one of its own contributors. Respect for that freedom must extend to the author whose historical interpretation appears within its pages.
The National Book Council needs to explain its position. Its collaboration with the publisher is public. What remains unclear is whether it had any involvement in, or prior knowledge of, the changes Borg describes.
I am not suggesting that the Council ordered the deletion. Its involvement in the project does not, by itself, establish responsibility for an editorial decision. But it does give the Council a clear reason to investigate and issue a public statement.
Who decided to remove that passage from Borg’s biographical note, apparently without his consent? What reason was given? What financial support did the Council provide, and what arrangements existed for respecting contributors’ words?
These are straightforward questions. Comma Press and those responsible for the editorial process should also explain what happened.
For me, the political irony is equally striking. The historical experience Borg recalls concerns Labour supporters’ suffering during the political-religious conflict. If public funding supported a publication in which that experience was deliberately suppressed, then this happened while the party most closely associated with that suffering was itself in government.
Exposing censorship aims to prevent its repetition. Borg has made a specific complaint and reproduced the words he says were removed. He deserves a specific answer.
Malta’s literary institutions should help authors bring their voices to new audiences. That responsibility includes respecting uncomfortable historical memories and allowing readers to encounter an author’s interpretation of his own work.