Thumbs down
The Nationalist Party has demanded that the Labour Party condemn its candidate Joe Sammut, who wrote a newspaper article detailing his view that Eddie Fenech Adami does not deserve any thanks for what he did, and that political division began when he became Nationalist Party leader in 1977. The only thing we should thank him for, Sammut wrote, is leaving politics.
The Nationalist Party is completely out of order and has made itself ridiculous by calling on Labour to condemn the actions of its own man. This is nothing but a drama-queen stunt: Labour is never going to condemn the actions of its own man. But that is not the only reason why the Nationalist Party should never have done this and should never do anything similar again. Political parties have no business bringing their full weight to bear against newspaper columnists, even if those newspaper columnists are politicians in disguise. That is dangerous territory, with freedom of speech implications, and it looks damned ugly.
Sammut has every right to say that Fenech Adami was useless and that he was the cause of political division in this country. His opinion is self-evidently inane even to his colleagues in the Labour Party. It should have been left at that.
The present administration of the Nationalist Party should learn how to pick its battles more carefully.
13 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Respectfully I disagree, for two reasons.
First: The man is a Labour candidate on the 12th district if I’m not mistaken, so that makes him fair game in my book.
Second: Although I agree that the PN should let columnists yap till they’re blue in the face, what Joe Sammut wrote could not have been left unanswered.
It was an insult to all those who experienced those years and a revisionist attempt on those who are too young.
Also, for those who don’t remember. This is the same Joe Sammut who used to be a newscaster at Xandir Malta during its glory days when the very name Eddie Fenech Adami’s was ‘verboten’.
[Daphne – It was just a bloody newspaper article, for God’s sake.]
I agree, but Sammut is a dolt.
…and anyway,who the hell is Joe Sammut? Why give importance to a nobody, writing in a newspaper read by two dozen people?
The guy does have some nerve though, spitting venom at a man of Eddie Fenech Adami’s stature. Then again, the likes of Joe Sammut personify evreything that makes me run a mile from the MLP or PL or whatever they call themselves these days.
Then again, if I were a Labourite, and had to stomach Eddie Fenech Adami running rings round Mintoff, KMB and then Fredu Sant, for five elections out of six (plus a referendum), I guess I would be somewhat frustrated.
I agree 100%. They’re also picking on Sharon Ellul Bonici because she posted a comment on Facebook. I don’t know what’s happening to the PN. First, Vince Farrugia is asked to contest the EP elections on the party ticket. Then they try to picture a PL candidate as pro-abortion. This tactic already failed five years ago against Alternattiva. Then they send John Dalli to the Holy See to talk about ‘ethical issues’, and now this.
It looks like the PN is in PaNic mode!
Politicians should understand that certain inane declarations defeat themselves without the need for others to lift a finger. The more you fight the obvious, the more you give it strength and advertise it.
What one should do is to ”fight” it not by attacking it directly but to write counter opinions. In this case much has been written and said about Eddie Fenech Adami and the PN should have disregarded the article completely.
I believe that, on most levels, one has to do good to counter ”bad” and not simply attack it. Then you leave it to the discretion of others to judge for themselves what they want to believe.
The message of the PN was clear – by not speaking out against such an article by one of its own candidates means that the “new politics” “europhile” PL is not much different than “New Labour” or “il-Labour tat-Torca”.
I do not think that it is anything to do with free speech – they did not ask the editor or the MLP to shut him up but just to state clearly that this is an opinion of one of their own and thus not reflect the official opinion.
[Daphne – They asked the Labour Party to condemn him/his article. If you cannot see the free speech implications, then it’s probably because Malta remains so backward in this respect. A political party cannot commit itself to outward-looking modernity and then take that approach.]
But they are too cowardly to do that as they know that in the hearts of most of the PL members nothing has changed – they are still the same 1970s and 1980s bunch with the same ideas – and these have to be appeased and pleased.
They are a conservative party – don’t you get it yet?
[Daphne – A conservative party would not have worked for EU membership, Edward. The conservative party on this island is Labour, but without the class.]
If you really believe that the PN is not conservative party, then you might want to question whether you are a liberal. What has EU membership got to do with it? All the Chritian Dmeocratic parties in Europe are pro-EU – that doesn’t make them liberal. The PN does not have one liberal in its senior ranks. Please don’t answer with another comparison with Labour – they are conservatives of the controlling left. Malta is lead by 2 conservative parties with a liberal(ish) media foolishly trying to portray one or the other as less liberal. The political landscape in Malta is doomed – the reaction to EU membership has been a retrenchment into more pseudo-religious fundamentalism. Look at the investiture of the president for crying out loud- it was fundamentally a religious service.
[Daphne – Oh for heaven’s sake, Edward, stop being so melodramatic.]
Come on, you can put up a much better reply than that. When you call the political class bigoted, it’s OK. When I say it, you classify it as melodrama. Face reality, the political class is trapped, they are all forced into a condition where they feel they have to be holier than the Vatican. Where I live, even Catholic priests can talk rationally about divorce, even abortion.
[Daphne – Yes, Edward, I know where you live. Don’t forget to get that flight in June to vote for Arnold.]
In Malta the PM is advised to avoid the ‘d’ word, let alone the “a” word – Daphne, you know this better than I. The media cannot change this, although you believe it is possible – the media rarely changes anything.
[Daphne – You’re wrong there, sugar. Malta is a completely different place to what it was in 1991, before private radio stations, new newspapers, new television stations, etc etc. And Malta wouldn’t have been the undemocratic, corrupt hell it was in 1984 if we had all those things – and you know it.]
It is only the electorate that can; and they won’t. So I guess you (and I for that matter) are barking up the wrong tree. Í still admire you for trying. I gave up one year ago and moved to the EU! Sahha
[Daphne – Yes, Edward, I know. Please don’t tell me again. I’ll take notice when you move to Manhattan or the Seychelles. Until then I can only feign interest.]
One of the definition of “condemn” is to “disapprove of strongly”.
[Daphne – I don’t know about Maltese, but in English there is a definite distinction made between disapproving of the sentiments expressed in an article and ‘condemning’ a person for writing it. The English language does not envisage a scenario in which persons are condemned, except to death, life in prison, years of misery, etc.]
In fact, the Nationalist Party’s statement (at least the Maltese version) emphasises that the Labour Party and Joseph Muscat should “disassociate” themselves from the the contents of the article. [Daphne – That statement should never have seen the light of day. That kind of thing is a major turn-off for people like me, of whom there are many thousands. It’s Backwoods-Billy thinking.]
In my opinion the message is clearly not one that is implying a reduction in free speech. [Daphne – Think about it a little more. Say I wrote an article and the Labour Party called on the prime minister to ‘condemn’ me for writing it and to dissociate himself from what I had written – something which has in fact happened already – how am I supposed to take that? I interpreted it – absolutely corrected given the Labour Party’s track record in my regard – as an attack by the Labour Party on a newspaper columnist it doesn’t like and wishes to silence because of the things she writes about it. Fortunately, the prime minister is not just an intelligent person but a lawyer: he knows – quite apart from freedom of speech issues – that a call for him to dissociate himself from something written by somebody who doesn’t represent him, his party or his government is a little…..ridiculous, just like the Labour Party, in fact.]
Until today, Muscat and the Labour Party have not uttered a word about this article – as I said before, it clearly shows that they are still the same old bunch. [Daphne – No, it clearly shows that in this case, they have their priorities right. Party leaders don’t get tangled up in the intricacies of what candidates write in their newspaper columns, unless they are criticising their own party’s policies.]
Gee whizz, (for lack of a decent expletive,) Joe Sammut you must be such an embarrassment to your family but as to the party you belong to, they can’t even spell the word.
So carry on writing…. after all you’re exercising your right to make a fool of yourself.
For those who were ridiculed with transfers and discrimination because of their political colour, when Dr. Fenech Admi was Prime Minister, the article by Joe Sammut is history.
C. Fenech – For those who lived through the 1970s and early 1980s, there’s worse “history” to be remembered. It seems that some of you would rather re-live it.