Toni Abela and Labour's proud heritage of free speech. In 1978 it was 'buffu'. Now, it's 'oxx'.

Published: September 20, 2008 at 12:20pm

Antoine Vella posted this comment beneath the Toni Abela ‘oxxata’ story. I think it deserves a little more attention, as it describes an experience he had 30 years ago, in a ‘free speech’ environment that many of us remember only too well. Now, we can read this and laugh at the ludicrousness of it all. Then, it was far from funny. But you can see that Toni Abela is the latest manifestation of Labour’s long history of befuddlement with free speech. They just don’t know how to handle it. Unable any longer to use the police force or punitive measures like transfers, withdrawal of licences and thug violence, they use libel suits to try to harass people for calling them a vagina. In 1978, it was ‘buffu’. In 2008, it’s c**t. Labour really has a problem leaving North Korea. For all its new leader’s insistence on European values, there’s a serious problem there.

MLP politicians have long had a knack of embarrassing themselves – must be a tradition. In 1978, I was in the Parliament Strangers’ Gallery with a friend of mine who at one point remarked that a certain Minister of Agriculture, now deceased, was behaving like a clown (buffu), screaming and jumping up and down. He was overheard by the minister’s driver who called a policeman and, for some reason, reported me instead.

I was arrested there and then, accused of breach of privilege and a few days later hauled before the House. The proceeding was transmitted on what was at that time Radio Malta so the entire country – those who bothered listening – heard Parliament spend about three hours discussing whether the minister was a buffu and whether he had been described as a buffu during the sitting or while there was a suspension (in those times, parliamentary sittings were regularly suspended because of uproar). There were speeches by MPs who sought to define the word buffu, others discussed whether buffu referred to the minister as a person or as a politician, etc.

MPs could also question me but the procedure was that they had to address the Speaker who would then ask me the question himself. Unfortunately the elderly Speaker, a retired pharmacist, was a little hard of hearing so the MPs often had to repeat their questions such as “What did you mean when you said Minister X was a buffu?”, “Did you call Minister X buffu before or during the suspension?”. Each question would then be repeated yet again by the Speaker.

As a result, a casual remark that had been overheard by only one person was broadcast to the whole country; the word buffu was bandied around all evening, usually in the same sentence as the minister’s name. At the end of the session Parliament took a vote and I was found guilty of having breached the privilege of the minister. The Speaker said that, as it was now late, the House had to adjourn and I would be called later for sentencing but it was never put on the parliamentary agenda again.




23 Comments Comment

  1. Ray Borg says:

    Daphne
    You are doing your best to derail the issue
    Nowhere in your comment of the 12 August did I find the “c–t” word written. Toni Abela is suing you for something else that you wrote in the comment and you know very well what this is all about.

    (Daphne – Tell me what it is, because I remain mystified. Maybe I should sue him, for calling me an atheist in L-orizzont. Abela originally threatened to sue me for calling him a “a genitali ta’ mara” by association with Joseph Muscat. I imagine he thought better of it, though I was looking forward to the show.)

  2. NGT says:

    @DCG – I assume you’ve read this – really mature, eh? http://toniabela.blogspot.com

    [Daphne – Oh, he’s ridiculous. It’s just typical of the Labour Party to pick two deputy leaders entirely devoid of gravitas. You really have to be chicken-brained to see potential for party greatness in this man. First he treats us to a disquisition on Westerns, then he writes in English about mice in salads ‘to spare her the bother of translating’, when he very well knows that I speak and write Maltese far better than he speaks and writes English. At least I know how to spell Armier, unlike him. Of course, he also has to go through all that horse-shit about hobz biz-zejt and hamalli – presumably, it’s OK for him and his cohorts at the Labour Party to deride my background, but I’m not allowed to pass remarks about theirs. And then, to really put on full display the fact that he comes from a socially dubious background, he describes the Caruana Galizias as ‘noble’ when they are anything but. To disabuse him of the notion that I am ‘noble by affinity and not by birth’, I am going to have to point out to him that I married right back into my own family, because my husband is also my cousin. That should get him going. I agree with you – he has the mentality of a 14-year-old schoolboy. One of my sons emailed from Canada to see whether he’ll be in Malta for the ‘oxx’ case, and was very upset to hear that the case is about something different. “He’s the adult version of those smarmy kids at school who used to report other kids to the teacher for swearing,” he wrote. And that’s the judgement of a 19-year-old. Perhaps the reason why they want to get 16-year-olds to vote is because they’re about the only age group who’ll look up to people like Toni, and I have my doubts about that.]

  3. David Buttigieg says:

    My God,

    His command of the English language is almost as bad as his class hatred!

  4. Ray Borg says:

    Daphne

    The free speech environment of 30 years ago pales into insignificance when compared to the oppressive and anti-democratic environment of the 60’s, the infamous years of mortal sin, burial in unconsecrated grounds, forbiddance of Labour newspapers in state hospitals and other abuse hurled at the Labour Party and its supporters.

    As this was happening the paladins of democracy and free speech – some of whom now occupy very high office – did not utter a word of protest or condemnation. On the contrary they lapped it all up and exploited it to the hilt for their own political ends.

    [Daphne – I wasn’t around for much of the 1960s, but had any newspaper buildings been burned down at the time, I’m sure my parents would have mentioned it at some point. After all, they didn’t support the Nationalist Party. What they do mention, however, is the thuggery and violence of 1958. I may not have been around for the 1960s, but I have read widely about the situation. On the other hand, I was around for the 1970s and 1980s, and had direct experience of Mintoff’s and Karmenu’s understanding of free speech. And the two don’t even begin to compare. It is the reverse of what you say: the 1960s situation pales into insignificance next to the years 1976 to 1987. There’s a Maltese judge in the ECHR who built his reputation on documenting the human rights abuses of the Labour government of those years, many of them linked to the suppression of free speech. It’s pointless trying to taunt me about what the Nationalists did in the 1960s, when I was an infant and all the adults on both sides of my family voted for the Constitutional Party.]

  5. Gerald says:

    I believe this incident ended up in the European Court for Human Rights. Am I correct or is that another one?

    [Daphne – You heard Antoine. It ended there. I think you’re referring to the Charles Demicoli case.]

  6. Albert Farrugia says:

    Yes, and who put this Judge at the ECHR? The much maligned Alfred Sant. Because the people whom this judge used to defend in the Maltese courts preferred to send to the ECHR some next of kin or something.

    [Daphne – What does that have to do with the price of eggs?]

  7. Gerald says:

    yes that’s the one. mixed them up but they sounded really similar…..

  8. Antoine Vella says:

    Ray Borg

    If the 1960s were as you say, it should have taught the MLP to be tolerant and civilised when in government. The violence of the Mintoff years was not the result of what had happened earlier but a deliberate and premeditated system of government.

    May I remind you that a prominent Labour columnist once wrote that Mintoff utilised violence and threats to control what the columnist referred to as ‘power networks’. The columnist later partly recanted, saying that he should have used the word ‘force’ rather than ‘violence’, as if that made it more acceptable. It was however violence, moral and physical, which was the order of the day and, let me repeat, it had nothing to do with the 1960s or with provocation: anti-hunting protesters e were also beaten up by thugs sent by a notorious Public Works minister. Brutal intimidation was simply Mintoff’s way of quashing criticism; even Cabinet ministers and other close collaborators were afraid of him.

    In a normal country the events of 30 years ago should no longer be relevant to today’s political situation and should have only historical interest. What is keeping them relevant is Labour’s stubborn denial of the facts. It is strange to hear Labour sympathisers deny that their party was ever violent while, in the same breath, praise Alfred Sant for having cleaned it from violence.

    There is moreover a nagging suspicion that the MLP refuses to admit to any wrong-doing because it has not really shaken off this aspect of the Mintoff legacy. The same columnist I quoted above did not exclude that Labour could again resort to violence should the need arise. That is why, perhaps, we still have Sammy Meilaq delivering threats (nisfrundawk).

  9. Keith Borg-Micallef says:

    Isn’t Dr. Abela’s ‘article’ just hilarious?

    Wow Daphne, you amuse me each and every single day. I admit I didn’t know these ‘high ranking’ people were so terrified of you. Or, rather, of your opinion. “I cannot imagine what would have happened had the victim been Daphne herself. The Prime Minister, the Archbishop, the Ombudsman, the Chief Justice, all Mayors and all others that have some say in the running of this country, would have by now fled from the Island to escape her wrath.” – Quoted from Dr. Abela’s. Were the United States to be acquainted of such a thing, I am quite convinced they would summon you to terrorize Bin Laden himself.

    But at least he cares about you, you see… (Jmissek thobbu iktar, miskin.) He doesn’t just relish meeting you up, even though I think there are more cool places to meet at other than the courtroom, but he also wants to make things easier to you! I refer to the fact that he decided to write his piece in English, to “spare Dame Caruana Galizia the translation.” Isn’t he just lovable, no sorry, I think I meant laughable.

  10. Ray Borg says:

    Antoine Vella
    Your comment, following Daphne’s reply to my post, prove that certain people still carry boulders, not chips, on their shoulders. This comes out in their extremely selective interpretation of historical facts.

    If you scroll back you shall note that my comment came in response to Daphne’s bit on freedom of speech. Yes, I do strongly believe, as many other dispassionate observers do, that the 60’s marked the most obscurantist, repressive and anti-democratic periods in our recent history. I admit that two wrongs do not make one right and in no way one atones or makes up for the other.

    In your comment you quote the opinion of a prominent Labour columnist about violence and you refer to the state of denial by Labour sympathisers. These are opinions not facts Mr Vella. The facts are that we had another Labour government led by Alfred Sant elected in 1996 and the violence of the 70’s and 80’s was more than dead and buried by then.
    Here are just a few comments that appeared in The Times about Labour’s purification from violence that came about with Alfred Sant’s leadership of the Party:

    o One cannot but praise Dr. Sant’s tough stand against intolerance and provocation.
    o To his great credit, the Labour Party leader, Dr. Alfred Sant, has consistently urged party supporters not to resort, or to react, to provocations and they have in their vast majority gone along with that instruction.
    .
    o Alfred Sant managed to exorcise the demon of political violence from the Labour Party soon after he became its leader in 1992.

    Yet, you still claim that that “There is moreover a nagging suspicion the MLP refuses to admit to any wrong-doing because it has not really shaken off this aspect of the Mintoff legacy”

    This is your opinion and you are entitled to keep it. Facts, however, are sacred and they prove your suspicions about the Labour Party’s actual position on violence totally wrong and extremely politically biased.

    [Daphne – Would the deputy leader of the Nationalist Party threaten to sue somebody for referring to the party leader – not even even him – as a genital organ on a blog? Do you see any Nationalist ministers or senior politicians writing newspapers articles to rant and rave against journalists they don’t like, and to incite hatred against them? There, you have your answer about the Labour Party’s acceptance of free speech today.]

  11. Ray Borg says:

    Daphne

    You persist. Toni Abela is suing for a comment you posted on 12 August in which there is no mention of female genital organs. You are parrying the thrust by swinging between the issues of violence and freedom of speech. The latter, no matter how sacred it is does not give anyone licence to insult.

    Did you count by any chance how many libel siuts were file by Nationalist ministers against Labour media just before the March elections? Were they by any chance refusing to accept the right of freedom of speech by your measures?

    And, please, the less we speak about ranting and raving against people we don’t like and inciting hatred against them the better for all of us.

    [Daphne – You are unfamiliar with our libel laws. Insults are allowed, which is why the Labour press and Toni Abela use this liberty to insult me on a regular basis. Lies are not allowed. I have examined the post in question minutely, and there is nothing remotely libellous there, nor even is there any mention of Toni Abela in the comments-board. As you appear to be in the know, and possibly also a friend of Abela, please copy and past the injurious item here and then we’ll talk. Or are you too embarrassed? The suits that were filed by the Nationalist Party/ministers were about lies, not insults. That is entirely different. You can say what you like about me, but I don’t lie about people. There’s no need to, because the facts are hilarious enough. Unfortunately, Abela is one of those men who handles his attraction to certain women by being rude about them and making sexual remarks to their face and in writing, particularly when they make it clear that they think he’s a worm. After detailing various parts of my body in an article of his, he once sidled up to suck up to me in court. He then wrote an article about my two-word response, which was ‘Piss off’. Apparently, he had never been told to piss off by a woman before, so his reaction was a mixed one of shock and excitement, and he poured out this emotion over L-orizzont, or was it his stupid blog? It’s something my husband has taken up with him on at least one occasion if not more. That’s the back-story. And that’s all there is to say about it. You can do with better friends than that, I’m sure.]

  12. Chris Tanti says:

    Daphne, it’s written “ghoxx” not “oxx”..

    [Daphne – We’ve been through this several times already. I prefer to spell it without an ghajn because it allows me to use pictures of two-horned creatures.]

  13. Saviour Sam Agius says:

    I wonder what “oxx” means. The closest word to it I know is “għoxx” and I just wonder if it describes the author.

    [Daphne – Ooooooh, nasty! You Labour supporters need to brush up on your wit. Some of your insults tend to fall a little flat. Read my explanation as to why I spell it without an ghajn. A person who is an ‘ghoxx’ is an idiot, and that hardly describes me, though you might think so and I might be described many others ways. In terms of insult, though not in biology, the meaning of ‘ghoxx’ is entirely different to the meaning of ‘c**t’, which is why I’m spelling the one with asterisks and the other without. Oh, and by the way: ‘c**t’ is used only for men.]

  14. Saviour Sam Agius says:

    Your generalisation is hopeless as usual. You’re the first homo sapiens sapiens to call me a Labour supporter. Do you really think that not liking you is synonymous with supporting Labour? How didn’t they win the last general election then?

    [Daphne – Probably because I have a huge fan base? And what sort of person is called Saviour Sam, anyway?]

  15. Chris Tanti says:

    Saviour is right in respect of your generalisation, Daphne. You’re inflating beyond reasonable limits the political antagonism to levels we haven’t seen since the 80’s.

    You’re at best promoting a local Red Scare and at worst sowing the seeds of a Gamsakhurdian mess.

    [Daphne – I’m a columnist for Malta’s smaller Sunday newspaper, you couple of tossers, not the archbishop or the leader of a political party with 50% of the electorate behind it. I can only influence those who actually read me, and then it’s only a small percentage of those who take notice. But thanks for crediting me with such magical powers. Labour voters tend to be on the gullible side, that’s why the party’s in such an atrocious mess.]

  16. Saviour Sam Agius says:

    Once your “labour supporter” tactic failed (old school thinking), you’re picking at my name. What sort of person is called Daphnie Caruana Galizia anyway? Wasn’t one surname enough or do double-barrels stand out more?
    Just like your fan base may be huge, your hate club is quite certainly enormous. I don’t read the content of your drivel and I’m not the only one at that. I just read the titles and that was enough this time to point out the nonsense. You think you can teach me what c**t means while at the same time giving me reasons for misspelling a word on purpose.

    [Daphne – Another wound-up whacko with a hate-chip on his shoulder. Sigh. If you don’t read what I write, how do you know it’s drivel and nonsense? Or are you one of those men with on obsessive compulsion that hovers somewhere between hate and fascination? You know, the kind that turn into stalkers with a gun? I’m not saying you’re going to turn into one, of course: I’m just pointing out, because you seem to have the brain of a sparrow, that you’ve got a bit of a problem there.]

  17. Mark says:

    @Ray Borg: Christ, you really are insufferable. Why is it that you and the rest of your lot cannot differentiate between a church decree and state-sponsored violence and censorship? Last I checked it was the Church and not the Nationalist government of the 60s who excommunicated Labour supporters.

    And yes, there is a nagging suspicion that the MLP refuses to admit any wrong-doing… precisely because the MLP has neither admitted nor apologised for its past and because it still counts as its supporters a number of people who would welcome the return of such savages as Mintoff, KMB and Toni Abela.

  18. Antoine Vella says:

    Ray Borg

    Intimidation and loss of freedom are closely connected and that is why I mentioned the violence of the Mintoff regime in relation to freedom of speech.

    In those days even Opposition MPs faced extreme hostility and needed all their courage to speak out. There were countless cases of MPs being manhandled, both by Government members and outsiders from the Strangers’ Gallery. On one memorable occasion the chief of the Task Force (Mintoff’s special army) ‘invaded’ the floor to heckle and threaten the Opposition.

    The first time that Parliament was convened after Labour’s victory in 1971, Opposition MPs were attacked by a mob and many had their cars vandalised. From that day onwards, until 1987, PN members entered and left the Palace from a small door in Merchants’ Str – it became unofficially known among canvassers and parliamentary staff as “the Opposition door”. I think ours must have been the only Parliament in Europe where Government and Opposition members used different entrances. This was rectified after May 1987 and since then Opposition members (this time Labour MPs) enter and leave the building freely through the main door, as it should be.

    If such was the situation faced by elected MPs in Parliament, one can imagine what it must have been like for the common people in workplaces and, indeed, in the streets. Labour sympathisers now trivialise the problems of those days by referring to the lack of chocolate and toothpaste but, in fact, those were the least of our worries. It was lack of civil and human rights not of Cadbury and Colgate that characterised the governments of Mintoff and KMB.

    Violence had became such a way of life that even ex-Labour minister Lino Spiteri, in his interview on The Sunday Times (21/9), describes how he was physically threatened in the 1980s – by another minister.

    As I said earlier, this is not about reopening old wounds but an attempt to understand what makes the Labour Party tick. There is a continuity of attitudes and tactics which have survived to the present; physical violence is less common but intimidation still accepted within New Labour. We all know how George Abela, for example, was treated in 1998 and again this year by the MLP and the GWU.

    PS – For the record, in the expression “to carry a chip on one’s shoulder”, the chip is a wooden one so a very large chip might be better described as a plank or log rather than a boulder.

  19. Ray Borg says:

    @Mark
    Brush up your history and answer these questions if you can:
    -What church decree sanctioned the stoning of Labour supporters during a Mass meeting in Gozo in May 1961?
    – What church decree authorised the pealing of bells and organised hordes of whistle blowing fanatics to disrupt Labour meetings?
    – Were there any Labour supporters among the mob who was throwing stones, pealing bells and whisling their brains off?
    -If these fanatics were not Labour supporters what were they?
    -Do you know who was the Nationalist Minister of Health who banned Labour’s weekly “Il-Helsien” from state hospitals in the sixties? I do.

    [Daphne – Is that all? My god, and there I was thinking there were real problems of oppression. But then, I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, so my threshold for violence and intimidation is a little higher.]

  20. Mark says:

    @Ray Borg: Bells and whistles?! PEALING bells and whistle blowers!? Gesu hanin, x’biza. Seriously, Ray, how did you cope? Miskin, I can only imagine how terrified you must be each time you happen upon a village festa.

    As for the incident in May 1961, I find it incredible that someone can hold the PN party to account for state-sponsored violence carried out during a time when Malta was still a colony and governed directly by Westminster. Please do enlighten us.

  21. Ray Borg says:

    @ Antoine Vella, Mark & Daphne

    Why are we wasting our time discussing events that happened fifty, forty or thirty years back. History is history and facts are facts that cannot be withwashed or erased.
    As the jingle goes “Life is Now” So why don’t we discuss Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando who is hanging round Gonzi’s neck like an albatross. We can also discuss Tonio Fenech’s budget miscalculations, the Nationalist government’s impotence on the immgration issue or which bullet Lawrence Gonzi wants us to bite.

    I can understand that the present situation is not too pleasant for Nationalist apologists or for the whole nation for that matter; so if you want to give it a miss I can understand and commiserate with you.

    [Daphne – Though I cannot speak for the others, the point you miss with me, Ray, is that I am like those people who lived through World War II, and for whom any meal was a feast afterwards. I reached adulthood, marriage and 1.5 children never having known anything other than public violence, economic stagnation, mass unemployment, widespread deprivation, low wages, wholesale corruption, oppression, and mad, depraved and very corrupt government politicians. So I am completely immune to the finer points of the Pullicino Orlando case. And after having grown up on Il-Bagit tal-Qawsalla and the annual pedantic recitation of the prices of corned beef (one variety) and tonn taz-zejt (two varieties), Tonio Fenech’s ‘budget miscalculations’ are like soothing balm. As for the immigration issue, nobody cares. Haven’t you noticed that it’s all about abortion now?]

  22. Antoine Vella says:

    Ray Borg

    You are incorrect in various ways. First of all, the current issues you mention have been and are still being amply discussed on this blog and elsewhere so it is not true that they are being avoided. The shameful record of the MLP is mentioned usually when issues of civil and human rights crop up, such as that ridiculous award to Mintoff.

    By trying to stifle free speech Toni Abela takes us back several decades; his antics are almost like one of those historical re-enactments that are becoming popular. It is little wonder that Toni and his worthy colleague, the other deputy leader, remind us of the past. They are throwbacks, the retro politics of the MLP.

    Incidentally you are also incorrect in saying that history cannot be whitewashed. Many Labour sympathisers are doing just that: living in a parallel world where Mintoff was never a neurotic despot and the marmalja never existed. Moreover, given half a chance, you would impose your fantasy on the rest of the country.

  23. Ray Borg says:

    @ Antoine Vella

    It was not my intention to drag this exchange of comments beyond boredom but your harping on Toni Abela’s ‘nasty’ attempt to stifle free speech forces me to submit my final comment in this thread.

    Can you dive into your memory and count how many libel suits were filed by Nationalist ministers and/or politicians in the last 12 months? Where do you classify these Mr Vella.

    In your infinite judgement you see many Labour sympathisers imposing their ‘fantasy’ on the rest of the country. Wake up Mr Vella. We are living in the age of democracy not in a fascist era that certain Nationalist sympathisers look back to with nostalgia and admiration.

    [Daphne – The mistake you make, Ray Borg, is in failing to distinguish between libel suits filed because of lies and gross untruths – the ones filed by Nationalist politicians – and libel suits filed because somebody feels himself offended or insulted – the ones filed by the likes of Toni Abela. The first are legitimate in a free speech society; the second are not. I have been grossly insulted by the Labour Party for the last almost two decades. But I have only filed for libel twice: once against Joseph Muscat and the Labour Party for associating me, in a novella written by Muscat and published by the party, with the Mafia, the P2 and the bombing of the Bologna train station way back in the 1970s (yes, unbelievable – lovely leader you’ve got there), a case I won; and again now, against Kurt Farrugia and Labour’s Maltastar.com, for publishing a story describing in graphic detail the insults I shouted at them and how I rose to attack them in the university auditorium, when their very own film footage and several witnesses testify to the fact that I sat there, didn’t move, said nothing and ignored them. That’s the difference, Ray Borg. Now grow up. If I had to sue every time the Labour Party insults me, every time they describe me as ugly when I am obviously anything but, every time Toni Abela describes me as atheist, every time they speculate on every aspect of my private and public life and try to expose me to ridicule and the hatred of their redneck masses, I would be in court every day of the week. I salute their freedom to insult me. And they should do the same. Now grow up.]

Leave a Comment