A la Frans Sammut
Published: December 22, 2008 at 7:54am
That pompous little ass Frans Sammut, writer of terrible books and one-time cultural adviser to Prime Minister Sant, and his son Mark Anthony, the man with the golden gun (sadly, even golden guns are detected by airport security scanners), have been having a lot of fun with the National Book Awards, organised by the National Book Council.
Forgive me if I seem patronising by spelling this out, but national books awards are usually concerned with books published for the first time in the preceding year. Ah, but not in the world of Sammuts. Mark Anthony edited a book of stories written and first published by a man who has been dead for 70 years, and republished recently by L-Ghaqda tal-Malti. Mark Anthony Sammut’s edited version of Guze Bonnici’s stories won the National Book Award for prose. Then it turned out that his daddy Frans Sammut was one of the judges. At least one member of the National Book Council has resigned, giving as his reason the way the national book awards were organised this year.
11 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
How could you forget the Patt Mal-Poplu, and the Bijografija ta’ Alfred Sant?
Oh dear …
[Daphne - I haven't. I watched the patt mal-poplu live on television, my eyes popping. And the bijografija sits on my desk, to drive me out of complacency.]
The national Book Awards - What a farce !!
Another farce a couple of years ago was when, if I am not mistaken, Alfred Sant was awarded a similar prize, when his was the ONLY nomination for the particular category in which he won.
farce jew mhux farce (national book awards), frans sammut vera mhux ta’ min isejjahlu hekk eh.
U le, veru pompous, imma “Il-Gagga” kien pjuttost tajjeb.
‘Il-Gagga’? That one owes too much to Franz Kafka’s ‘The Castle’.
Mrs. Caruana Galizia
Once again you are not saying the truth about me. You have already been scolded once by a Magistrate and a Judge for saying things about me which were untrue. You were also condemned to pay me damages.
These are the facts of this case:
1. I did not edit said book. I merely formed part of the editorial board - composed of David Agius Muscat, Joseph P Borg, Amanda Busuttil, Reno Fenech and the undersigned.
2. The works are not mine, but Guze Bonnici’s.
3. The Prize was awarded to the Ghaqda not to me.
4. The date when the works were written is immaterial, given that a good number of them were published for the first time. It is the DATE OF PUBLICATION not the DATE OF WRITING which matters.
5. The Book Council member who resigned is connected with a publishing house which has been winning Book Council prizes for a good number of years.
The fact that you criticize me and not this person betrays your bias.
Lastly, may I point out that when I took part in the Patt mal-Poplu initiative, I was giving my professional services. Remember you have been found guilty by two Courts of Law for passing uncouth remarks on my professional services.
Please refrain from expressing and/or relaying inventions and/or half-truths about me.
Mark A. Sammut
[Daphne - Have it your own way, Mark. The fact remains that you tried to board a plane with a gun about your person, intentionally or because you forgot it was there. Even you didn't deny this to the police, or suggest that the security guards who caught you planted it on you so as to frame you. You won your case because our archaic libel law does not permit the press to expose public persons to ridicule. While some magistrates have relaxed their interpretation of this archaic law, others have not. I still think you're ridiculous, pompous and pointless. Now if you want to try suing me once more for having a poor opinion of you and 'exposing you to ridicule in your capacity as a nutar', go right ahead. I'll have a field-day with this blog. It's a shame it wasn't up and running first time round.]
For instance, one of the points I raised is that I AM NO LONGER A LABOUR PARTY CANDIDATE SINCE 1999 - ten years, please note! It means I have not been a PUBLIC person for ten years. It means you are harassing a PRIVATE person.
[Daphne - Notaries (notaries public, NP) can never be private persons unless they retire and cease to practice their profession. Over and above that, you relinquished your right to privacy by participating in very public political acts during an election campaign, notoriously that Patt mall-Poplu with Alfred Sant in the Hotel Phoenicia ballroom, which had half the country in stitches of shocked laughter. Equally, you surrendered what was left of your assumed privacy by going through airport security with a gun on your person or in your handbag.]
Another point which I raised was thus subdivided:
i. The law imposes on notaries not to deny their services to anyone who requests them
ii. In the Patt mal-Poplu ceremony I was asked to notarize signatures on a document which was not against the law, public morality or public policy (the 3 requisites imposed by the law)
iii. It follows I could not deny the Labour Party my professional services.
Lastly, the Patt mal-Poplu idea was not MINE.
[Daphne - Of course you could. That's the sort of rubbish explanation used by certain criminal lawyers to justify the defence of paedophiles and drug traffickers they know to be guilty as hell, that they cannot refuse. We then discover that they drop these clients the instant they run out of money and can no longer pay the fees. You know as well as I do that lawyers can always refuse a potential client unless ordered by the court to defend somebody who can find no other lawyer to defend him. Notaries, too, can refuse any job they please. It's a free country. They are especially free to refuse dodgy and/or ridiculous and void 'contracts' like Sant's farcical 'patt' with an indistinct entity that has no legal identity (il-poplu). Why not just be a man and say you took on that job in a moment of poor judgement and now regret it? We'll forgive you. But continuing to be pig-headed about it....]
Also, the so-called Patt mal-Poplu was not a “void contract” as you propose.
First of all, it was a unilateral pledge ADDRESSED to the people, and not a bilateral agreement WITH the people. The law contemplates the existence of unilateral contracts. The assumption is that the “receiving end” (as it were), is to decide at a later stage whether to accept the offer made unilaterally. In the particular context of that Pact, more than half the people decided not to accept the offers made therein. That does not invalidate the original unilateral obligation.
Secondly, the other considerations you make about said declaration (ie. dodgy and/or ridiculous) are not legal but merely political. I was involved as a professional rendering professional services, not as a politician. I was asked to notarize the signatures, not to comment about the content. As I said, the idea was not mine. So please stop shooting at the wrong target.
[Daphne - Oh come off it. Ask yourself why they picked you and not some other notary. It's not just because your father is a friend of Sant and wrote his hagiography. Charles Mangion is one of Malta's most sought-after notaries. But he didn't 'notarise' the Patt Mall-Poplu, did he?]
Nice one Daphne.
When you’re with your back against the wall, your so-called Moderator censors my comments.
For the last time, publish the comment about the notarial duty to render one’s service. You’ve said something which is a complete lie (i.e. notaries can opt not to render their services). Kindly rectify, or I’ll have to find other ways and means which the law allows.
And I’ll be frank with you. I really don’t wish to waste my (and your) time in Court.
So be a woman, admit that you didn’t know what the law states, publish my comment, and we stop here.
If you play chess, I’d like to invite you for a virtual game one of these days. If you are choosy, and don’t play with everybody (particularly if you are not sure you’re going to win), I won’t take it as an offence. It will just confirm my analysis of you. And it could also be a compliment.
Best regards.
Mark A. Sammut