The People – some of them are crackers
A Christian cross would be that much more chic, and really get the boys going
The usual sporadic debate has begun again in the correspondence columns of The Times as to whether our flag should be shorn of the George Cross.
The debate is tedious, so I won’t be going into the details though I will tell you what I think: that the depiction of the George Cross should stay exactly where it is.
Some of the alternatives being put forward for our consideration are anything but tedious.
They are entertaining, like this one:
“The Christian cross was introduced to Malta 2,000 years ago by St Paul, arguably, second to Jesus as the most influential person in Christian history, perhaps world history.
In both its longevity of association and impact on culture, the Christian cross is by far the most appropriate cross to feature on the Maltese flag.
However, other sensible suggestions, such as the Neolithic temples, have been offered by readers. Ġgantija prehistoric temple in Gozo is the oldest free-standing buildings in the world and the seated “goddess” from Ħaġar Qim is reputed to be the oldest statue in the world. The Maltese should be immensely proud of these unique possessions.
Both are many times more deserving of being on the national flag than the George Cross. But, for me, the Christian cross wins the day.”
84 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Does it matter what cross is on the flag, be it the George Cross or Christian cross? Isn’t a cross always a cross?
[Daphne – No. It’s a symbol. Each of those crosses is a symbol of something very different.]
Interesting. I was not aware that there was such a debate going on. The question I pose is as follows:
are there any civilised and well established countries that would consider changing their national flag?
The only circumstance that could possibly be a justification for modifying our flag is if Gozo becomes an independent state, which everyone will agree, is very plausible say in 1,000,000 years.
Listen here, Pierre, Surely you do know that Gozo IS independent. They do what they like, when they like, moan all the time, rip off tourists and Maltese visitors alike, and the cherry on the cake they pay NO taxes. Actually I think we should replace the George Cross with a pic of Gozo, because I seriously think it is the cross to beat all crosses. Yep a new GC,……the Gozo Cross.
Why should we? Let them design their own flag. A blown-up VAT receipt would be appropriate.
But the flag WAS changed, just after the war. Were we not a “civilised and well established country” then?
[Daphne – The official flag between WWII and 1964 was the Union flag. There was no such thing as the Maltese flag because there was no such thing as the Maltese state. Malta was a British colony and colonies don’t have their own flags. Perhaps you have forgotten the famous 1964 photographs of the Union flag being lowered in Valletta and the Maltese flag being raised instead, in the presence of the Duke of Edinburgh, the prime minister, the chief justice, and so on?]
And before we became a British colony we were (apart from the brief French interlude) part of Spain.
I do recollect that we did have a Maltese flag even before 1964. Maybe it was not used for official functions because of the Union Flag, but after 1943 the Maltese flag did have the George Cross in a blue canton. With Independence the blue background was replaced by a red outline (fimbriation).
Pure sophistry. It’s like saying that the flag of Canada and Australia is the Union Jack.
[Daphne – No. Pure facts and history. Before independence from Britain, we were not a state but a colony, and hence we had no flag of our own except a ‘fun’ one for unofficial use. That flag could only be used officially as from 21 September 1964, when we became an independent state. Australia and Canada are states, and that is why they have their own flag. The fact that the British sovereign is officially theirs too is irrelevant. I think you overlook the fact that we did not become a republic in 1964, but 10 years later.]
The “Maltese” flag originated from the emblem of the Universita (a late medieval institution throughout the Hospitalliers’ period). One can observe the coat-of-arms on the Mdina cathedral having this flag. The State flag of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is the red rectangular flag with the white latin cross. It is commonly known that the “Religion” flag because the Knights’ Order was know as the “Religio” and very popular among festa affacionados who put on flags during feasts. Indeed Rev Mannarino in one of the serious revolts organised against the Knights, had torn down the religion flag in fort St Elma and put up instead the flag of the universita. Despite the historical fact that the Universita was abolished by the French does not mean that its flag became “illegitimate”. The dictatorial whims of the colonial office in London do not eracdicate nationalistic feelings expressed in flags and emblems that can be traced back centuries.
Pierre, Canada totally redesigned their flag in the 1960s. I hope we were somewhat civilized and well-established back then. We rid ourselves of the Red Ensign, which included the Union Jack, and replaced it with the red maple leaf. Big, big hoo haw. Now we all proudly wear the new flag on our back packs, sports uniforms, etc. In fact, most American backpackers, when travelling the world, sew the Canadian flag on their pack – feel they are better accepted, I would assume.
What exactly is the Christian cross? The cross was widely adopted by Christians as a symbol (their early symbol seems to have been a fish) probably around the third century and, it became firmly established after Constantine’s Milvian bridge charade (in hoc signo vinces). It consists of two staight lines crossing each other at right angles and this sign has been drawn by humans since time immemorial. The cross was also an instrument of dishounourable execution used even before the Romans. Its origins, in this respect, are anything but Christian. Many national flags have a cross but it runs across the entire flag – I know of no national flag which carries a small cross in a corner near the hoist or anywhere else on the flag except the Swiss one which has it in the centre. If the George Cross were to be removed, why have any symbol at all on the flag which is made of two colours? The colours red and white in vertical bands are used only by Malta and there is no need for anything else like the so-called goddess of fertility to render the flag distinctive.
In my experience in foreign countries, I discovered that, apart from the British (and not all of them at that) almost nobody knows what the George Cross is and people think it is just an elaborate cross. Because of this reason, as far as foreigners are concerned, its depiction on our flag is now largely meaningless. One thing is certain: the GC on the flag distinguishes Malta as a “Christian country” because no Muslim (or Jewish etc) state would have featured such a symbol on its flag even if such a decoration had been bestowed on its population.
The GC on the flag, therefore, has significance almost exclusively to the Maltese. King George VI gave this decoration to Malta for bravery but the country got little else from the British who, soon after the war, demonstrated their appreciation of Maltese valour by proceeding to run down the services and causing huge unemployment as a result of which many had to migrate to other countries like Australia. Malta did suffer a great deal in the war (though in comparison to the atrocities committed in Eastern Europe it was thankfully moderate) but this was because it was used by the British to harass the Axis powers. Whether Malta would have been occupied had it not been British is a moot point, one of the “ifs” of history like Cleopatra’s nose. What is a historical fact is that, at the beginning of the war, some British high brass considered the island indefensible and were going to abandon it to its fate– such is colonialism. Before the war, there was even some talk of exchanging Malta for an Italian possession in Africa.
It is my opinion that the majority of Maltese alive today are indifferent to the GC on the flag but it is still historically too early to dispense with it.
You cannot have your cake and eat it. In other words, you cannot have independence and have the British exchequer finance your economy.
The Maltese flag should be a non-issue. Some believe that the GC should go, so why don’t we change the white and red as well while we’re at it? The flag is one of the only chic things that we have as a country. People do not ask why it is red and white, but they ask what the cross stands for. And it should make us proud to state what it is (for those who know, anyway).
Mela nitfghu il-mara l-hoxna fuq il bandiera, jew il-Ggantija temples? Does the UK show Stonehenge? Egypt: the pyramids or sphinx? Italy: the Coliseum or Pisa tower? Spain: bull-fight arenas? France: the Tour Eiffel?
You have put your finger on the nub of the matter. None of those countries show anything on their flag except the colours. We should do the same.
[Daphne – That’s because none of them have what we have.]
In fact a cross is a Christian symbol and so the George cross is also a Christian symbol. Some see the George Cross as a symbol of a colonial past or of a war which many persons today do not remember.
I think someone had suggested that instead the Maltese cross (or the cross of the Knights of St John) is put on the flag. This cross is used on the civil ensign on maritime Malta flag. However there are many countries whose ensign is completely or slightly different from the flag.
The George Cross is a relatively recent addition to the Maltese flag which was traditionally red and white. In 1964 the colour of the border surrounding the George Cross had changed from blue to red.
To my mind there is no great difference if there is a change or not as the flag has only a symbolic value.
Don’t people have more important things to think and talk about?
I would rather change the national anthem……qisu marc funebri. Viva Malta sounds much better.
I don’t know why all this fuss about the George Cross… why not leave it there? In a few hundred years, it will be synonymous with Malta, just like the eight-pointed cross of the Knights of St John is today, and there will be free publicity about Malta from the UK. w
Malta imports more than it exports, so there should be no reason why the George Cross be removed… it’s another imported thing, no?
And I hope I did not understand correctly: do these people want to place the fat lady on the flag instead of the George Cross (or the temples)? It’s not that I don’t appreciate our oldest part of history, but the George Cross is aesthetically more appropriate on the flag than those other subjects. I’m just looking at it from an artistic point of view.
The George Cross should stay on our flag as a reminder of the postwar ‘gains’. After the severe pounding we got from the Germans we were not even allowed to get any Marshall Aid for reconstruction. Instead a piece of tin had to suffice.
Instead we should change our dated and obsolete Innu Malti. It sounds like the worst of funeral dirges with words to fit.
Agħti, kbir Alla, id-dehen lil min jaħkimha,
Rodd il-ħniena lis-sid, saħħa ‘l-ħaddiem.
Well, the point I read quite often in the debate was that the British were “occupiers” – mainly according to a certain L Galea who I believe does nothing all day but scan timesofmalta.com to see where he can throw some rubbish in (normally refugees and anything to do with FORINERRS).
The point is that until 1964 Malta as a state did not exist. We were either a county of Sicily, part of Spain, Arab territory etc. So in fact our flag became our national flag in 1964. And it did so George Cross and all.
“our flag became our national flag in 1964. And it did so George Cross and all.”
Precisely.
Yes, but the flag has its own history. Mdina was using the red and white coat of arms at least since the 15th century. But by all means let’s change our awful national anthem.
Let ‘the people’ decide. They seem to know everything about architecture and linguistics, They will even have a say when it comes to environmental issues (if LP has its way) so why not this too?
By the way, the girlfriend of someone I know once asked who George Cross was because his name was familiar. Not kidding – happened in front of my eyes.
[Daphne – Not surprised: my son was taken discreetly aside by one of his fellow postgraduate students (a University of Malta graduate in International Relations) and asked to explain who Mussolini was because she was too embarrassed to ask the lecturer. It turned out that the dates 1939-1945 had no significance for her.]
Well, try asking university students about Hiroshima; if you are lucky you might get the reply “kien hemm xi spluzjoni hux?”. Most will stare blankly at you.
Even better, try asking them what happened in the years 1971-1987 and they stare even more blankly at you. Miet xi hadd hux? they will say…..u kontu tmorru l-iskola fid-djar. And thas it. Niente. Nada. Nil. Nothing between the ears but air. No sense of history.
qed tagibha ftit imma nsomma
Interesting. I’ve known a George Cross, involved in the ‘Pedigree’ dogs fraternity, since the early 1980s. He’s proud of his name. And I don’t see why he shouldn’t be.
This is really simple. Some people want a symbol of gallantry while others want a symbol of gullibility. Not even the Vatican has a symbol of the Christian cross on its flag, but we have to be more Catholic than the Pope.
I particularly like the George Cross, because its a symbol of so many good things, such as being under the English rather than being under the French or the Arabs, for bravery and gallantry during WWII.
[Daphne – ‘We’ weren’t under ‘the Arabs’. ‘We’ were the Arabs.]
What gallantry? It was a desperate battle for survival. The Maltese then had no other option.
Again a misleading comment about a complicated issue. Probably we mixed with the Arabs rather than becoming 100% Arabs. The evidence is clear, there are too many non-Arabic rooted surnames in the very early militia lists that point to the fact that an original core of Maltese had survived. The Arab settlement was of course overwhelming (and probably the majority in Malta but probably not Gozo). Indeed we still have an Arab dialect as a language as the language of the majority ousted that of the minority.
The best analogy is to be made with Sicily. For too many years nationalistic propaganda has invented the myth of a self-sufficient Maltese nation that survived the influx of conquerors. In reality we were 100% Sicilian and it is madness to separate Maltese medieval history from that of Sicily. In that period being Maltese means automatically being Sicilian.
It does not follow that because “there are too many non-Arabic rooted surnames in the early militia lists . . . . an original core of Maltese had survived.” The non-Arabic surnames could simply have been imported into Malta (along with the Arabic ones) from Sicily during the Muslim period, and beyond up till 1419.
Ah finally, words of sense, except the bit about an original core of Maltese. Meaning what, Roman or Byzantine Maltese? Yes, there are some early Maltese surnames of Greek origin, but that doesn’t mean their holders couldn’t have settled in Malta during the 11th-13th centuries. Shyte our history gives me headaches. So damn complicated.
Just to indulge in my favourite hobby of medieval nitpicking, the “Arab” invaders of North Africa, who were to, er, invade and colonise Malta (yeps, it wasn’t always white-on-black colonisation you know) , were anything but exclusively Arab, but still there was an influx of Arabs from the Arabian peninsula (aarrrgh complicated). The Aghlabids of Ifriqiya, after conquering Sicily, had to face an invasion by the Arab Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym tribes, and by the Khurasanis (Persianised Arabs living in Iran). Although the main source of manpower for the Aghlabid armies was the Berbers (mainly from the Huwwarah tribe – try calling any Maghrebin “Arab”), they also recruited black abid soldiers of slave origin, and the saqaliba (European slaves, but also Muslims who had settled in the old Byzantine province of Lucania). And there were also Arab exiles from Andalus. As for Berber genetic identity, I’ll just pop outside to get a very long bargepole.
STOP PRESS:
For those who might be – ahem chrrrm – interested, some scholars posit the survival of pre-Arab conquest traits in the Maltese language (pre-Hilal, from the Arabic “hilal”=crescent moon).
Here’s the reference:
Martine VANHOVE
(C.N.R.S. (LLACAN, Meudon)), 1998:
“De quelques traits préhilaliens en maltais”, in Aguade, J., Cressier, P. y Vicente, A. (eds.), Peuplement et Arabisation au Maghreb Occidental (Dialectologie et Histoire). Madrid – Zaragoza: Casa Velazquez – Universidad de Zaragoza, 97-108.
The author states, in a nutshell, that the Maltese language developed in isolation from the other Arabic dialects, and it has preserved some of the characteristics of North African speech from before the Muslim conquest. Note that this is not the same as the fanciful “Punic” origins attributed to Maltese by some authors. Fascinating bedtime reading, what, Daphne. You should publish a special issue of Taste on medieval Malta. If it’s recipes you want, I’ll provide them.
[Daphne – There are plenty of scholarly texts on medieval Malta. The trouble is that few people read them, so the rest are stuck with the myths they learned in Gateway to our Nation’s History (a choice of book-title which says a lot in its use of the word ‘nation’).
This debate should be a no-go for starters. The flag should remain as is. I would be curious to see the flag with an image of the temples. From a design point of view this would, in my opinion, be a disaster.
It’s better that these same people invested their time and energy lobbying against the ‘plastic sheets’ covering the temples!
Personally, some people have nothing better to do……just leave it there and get a life.
Maltese people seem to hate monotony. They are always changing and renovating. Sometimes it’s the curtains in the living room, next time it’s the façade, and then, it’s the official name of the political party. Sooner or later, the renovation has to be on the history that makes (most of) us proud.
Now I’m no patriot. Well, not in the sense I’d die for the flag. I’d die for my family, but that’s it. I’m no saint (in the religious sense), so maybe I’m the wrong person to comment, but it strikes me that people who (publicly) call for the George Cross to be replaced by a Christian cross are just trying to get attention. “Look how holy I am!”
My take on it is that, like it or not, Malta was awarded the George Cross, and it’s something that is part of our history.It’s always going to be there and part of our future because it’s not going to be taken back.
[Daphne – And we’re not going to be churlish or cause a major diplomatic rift by rejecting it.]
Christianity may be part of our past, but it sure as hell ain’t part of our present, and I doubt it will part of our future. Malta may be Christian in name, but a lot of people are fooling themselves if they think it’s about going to church on Sunday and displaying the cross as publicly as possible. You can’t get much more public than the flag.
Somewhat unfairly, you only highlight the more outlandish suggestions, but not the most sensible – that the flag should be a plain red and white banner.
[Daphne – How ghastly and anonymous, like wearing a black dress to a cocktail party.]
Why should the flag be a plain red and white banner?
The Poles don’t think so.
…and when we are looking for great taste and asthaethics, we normally turn to the Poles?
– depends who’s wearing the dress, Daph. I get quite a lot of attention in mine!
I think it’s time to up the level of the debate a bit: I suggest we do away with the Maltese flag completely and replace it with a Manchester United one.
Chris, much as I love ManU, replacing a flag carrying a cross with one showing a red devil would bring about civil unrest.
Or with Kermit the frog.
or Michael the Small Rodent
If we go for the Christian cross I’d make it a radiant one. They really look good. Not too excited by the debate on whether it should stay or it should go. But I have some strong feelings about our national anthem and its need for a revamp. Got caught in transit and I see that some people’s comments reflect my views right down to a reference to “L Galea”. (He considers GonziPN as hakkiema so he’d keep that one until Joe takes over).
Now, how about some music with balls? Tipo – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iYbEPZVVIA
I suggest we put the fat lady to show the world we are a nation with an overweight headless/brainless population.
How about the rainbow flag instead – it may help gay tourism to Malta.
I honestly think there’s only two option available.
One would be the “do nothing option” which involves leaving it as it is.
The other option would be replacing the George Cross with il-Perit Mintoff … The true symbol of the Maltese Islands.
Or Bajzu’s face maybe? Or that famous picture of Renato wearing what looks suspiciously like a moth-eaten goatskin round his midriff …from Gensna? Or maybe replace the national anthem with something from that truly seminal Rokk Opra? The possibilities are endless.
grazzi…grazzi tat tbissima li pogejtli fuq wicci! hehe!
Morning D, you mention above that Malta was a colony. Was it? I think the official term was that Malta was an island with Dominion Status, whatever that means. But all I know is that no British army, naval or air force officer could allow his ceremonial sword to ‘drag’ on the ground as that would have signified we were a ”conquered” colony, which was not the case. Disgustingly, that’s as far as my little bit of knowledge goes. So although Malta was considered a British colony, my question is ”Was it in fact the equivalent of, say, Singapore or Gibraltar?”
We were actually a “protectorate”. We had asked the British to come and protect us from the French! Despite the anti-colonialist feelings of some of us, I believe that as a British protectorate we fared much better than, say, other British colonies.
But that’s because we confused the hell out of the British. You see, Tony, the British looked down their noses at everyone who wasn’t white, English-speaking, and Protestant. Cromwell’s chaps were pretty nasty to the Gaelic-speaking Protestant Scots, but when they got to Drogheda and the Catholic Irish, trust me, you don’t want to know.
Now we were Catholic and did not speak English, which was bad enough. But were neither black nor Indian, so we left them in a quandary.
In short, it is not because we were a protectorate that we fared better*, but because we were European in our administration and government (yes, Daphne), and, er, non-black. Besides, we were, and always have been, pretty easy-going about having johnny foreigner running the place.
And we were NOT a protectorate, either in name or in practice.
*We DID NOT fare better after decolonisation, because we’re too small to have formed our own expat lobby back in the UK, but there’s nothing we can do about it now.
No, Malta never had dominion status, since that would have implied self-government. The closest description of our status, just before the Second World War, would be that of crown colony with a nominated or representative council. The whole question of Sette Giugno and all that was driven by this nominated/representative thingy (and home rule) more than anything else.
Twanny: “.. that the flag should be a plain red and white banner.”
Apart from the significance inherent to the George Cross forming part of the Maltese flag, its inclusion has a vital function, that of making the flag distinct from the red/white flag long in use in use as the letter P [or Pilot] flag that is flown by ships entering or leaving harbour, or when negotiating narrow waterways.
The “P” flag is a blue flag with a white square in the centre. It is the “H” flag that resembles out national flag, though the proportions are quite different.. (http://207.56.201.131/tidings/snailtale/flags.html)
@HP Baxxter: if your comment of Sunday was in response to mine, the period I was referring to was the early fifties when Malta was still very much a colony. Don’t run away with the idea that I am somehow anti-British. Most of my education was very much on English lines and I am an admirer of English culture (apart from other cultures of which I am also more or less imbibed) and many other things “British”. But history is history – a colony was there to serve the interests of the colonizer and there is not much room for sentimentality that the admiration of the British authorities for the “heroism and devotion that will long be famous in history” outlasted the war by a long stretch. Nevertheless, the Maltese voted for the Independence constitution in a referendum and this included the flag carrying the GC. It may not be good politics to remove the GC at this point in history. Otherwise I do not see much point in having it on the flag when today almost nobody outside Malta knows what it is and what it signifies.
Oh but they do know what the GC is, E=mc2. At least those who should know, and who value this sort of thing (members of the armed forces) do know. As for the rest not knowing about it, it’s like the Spanish removing the coat of arms on their flag, or the Slovenians removing the three peaks on theirs, or the Indians removing the sun-like thingy, because people outside these don’t know what it means. We know what it means, and that’s reason enough not to remove the George Cross.
Re. the whole “colony” question, the subject’s been debated to death on this forum (just about the only place where has occurred, thanks to Madame Daphne who runs this literary salon). We would never have thought of ourselves as a colony if we hadn’t asked for independence. Think about that.
There’s nothing worse than the Maltese discussing their history – ignorance reigns supreme. Hans is right. Malta was a colony pure and simple. Dominion Status was close to being independent and was proposed for some time in the 1950’s instead of independence but Malta never had that status (Canada did).
We were never a protectorate which is a different kettle of fish (Palestine between the wars was by agreement between the victorious powers). As regards the Arab period, about which very little is documented, the inhabitants of Malta before the Arabs took it were of an unknown ethnic origin – probably a good salad of different ethnicities. If Al Himyari’s account is true to fact, the Arabs depopulated the island when they conquered it from the Byzantines and re-populated it later on by Muslim Arab-speakers who were not necessarily Arab (i.e. originating from the Arabian peninsula).
Even today’s North Africans probably have less than half their genes truly Arab for they are mixed with Berbers, sub-Saharan Africans, Egyptians and Europeans. Speaking Arabic and being Muslim is not enough to make you a real Arab. When Malta fell again to western powers, an influx from Sicily, Italy and elsewhere began and this gradually had a huge effect on language, culture, religion and genetic mixture. The latest tests on the Y-Chromosome of modern Maltese men conducted by the University of Malta showed that the genetic admixture is the same as that of men in Sicily and Calabria (themselves a mixed genetic bag).
Regarding the Innu Malti, I find exception to the words “Aghti hniena lis-sid, sahha lill-haddiem”. It presents a meek picture of docile workers to whom God grants good health so that they can work for the master who relaxes with a good cognac and a gorgeous girl on each side while pitying (ihenn) his workers. Tajjeb, aghti s-sahha lill-haddiem halli jahdem izjed biex is-sid joqghod ihenn ghalih u jgawdi minn fud dahru!” (written slightly tongue in cheek).
Very very interesting comment, E. And one with which I’m in almost total agreement.
Viz the national anthem, the score is what it is and should stay, but the lyrics could do with a makeover, although I see shades of Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ here. Every tinpot PM we have will soon re-word the Innu on accession if we’re not careful.
“Regarding the Innu Malti, I find exception to the words “Aghti hniena lis-sid, sahha lill-haddiem”. It presents a meek picture of docile workers to whom God grants good health so that they can work for the master who relaxes with a good cognac and a gorgeous girl on each side while pitying (ihenn) his workers. Tajjeb, aghti s-sahha lill-haddiem halli jahdem izjed biex is-sid joqghod ihenn ghalih u jgawdi minn fud dahru!” (written slightly tongue in cheek).”
That would be really nice, wouldn’t it? Instead the “sid” is desperately grappling around to see how the hell he is going to afford a six-euro weekly COLA rise.
Poland’s flag does not have a concentration camp on it. Indonesia’s flag, does not have a comodo dragon on it. Both of them are white and red or the other way round. It seems that we think we are more special than others.
Probably in the not so far future,we would be obliged to replace the G.C. with a coloured person, ghax jekk nghid “n____r nigi banned, insomma xorta ha nigi banned.
[Daphne – Better 10 decent people from Africa than one p***k like you. Shame your passport gives you protection and we can’t ship you out.]
We may not be more special than others although it appears that you think we are.
While the GC on our flag may have little meaning to many, it does remind me of my parents’ and greatparents’ struggle for survival during WW2. The GC on the flag is symbolic. The actual George Cross is historical.
Hey Joe, for some people you probably look ‘coloured’.
It always depends on someone’s angle of vision. You better get your eye-sight checked.
For those who are jelous,I was born in upper tollington LONDON, & don’t need protection,as I am seriously thinking of being reunited with my nice mother country,altru milli bidnija
[Daphne – I’m seething with ‘jelousy’…..Upper Tollington, eh? Dammit. You’re still a wop, sweetheart.]
Insomma, mela int Malti ta’ Londra …
10 decent people from africa? but you have to go south!!
Andrea: it’s not the colour that annoys me,but their way of doing or not doing things.maybe you can say that I’m jelous for their theet & their something else.
And for my eye-sight ‘ghaxaqta’.I have the pleasure to admit that I’m one of the few that have a 20/10 vision
[Daphne – Perfect vision is 20-20 and not 20-10.]
Joe, with ‘their teeth, their something else’, your estimated height and your 20-10 vision you would probably look like one of those funny Star Wars characters.
Joe Borg,
At first I thought it was a typo but no! You claim to live in London and yet can’t even spell jealous?
You see, the problem with racists like yourself is that you know that you are at the bottom of the barrel, especially intellectually. Therefore you have to find scapegoats who have to have something “worse” then you and so choose something people have no control over (in this case colour) and depict it as worse and blame them for your limitations.
You will be hard pressed to find a secure, successful racist!
“maybe you can say that I’m jelous for their theet & their something else.”
err theet? What’s that?
Am I a p***k? or a wop? maybe I am both?
And for the Bidnija bit, it’s breathtaking,no heart feelings, seventythrees!!!
[Daphne – Sigh. If only these racists came with a brain attached.]
“if only these racists came with a brain attached”
Then they wouldn’t be racists would they?
Don’t think this guy’s elevator goes all the way to the top. Appears to revel in self-ridicule.
Well, I leave the 20/20 for those who are perfect,mine siutes me very fine.
Your same petty insults are growing old.
So every person/politician that fears mass influx of illegal immigrants,has no brains,maybe the least have a heart.
Queen of the hills,go on have your last word!!!
“If only these racists came with a brain attached”
Isn’t that like lamenting that bicycles don’t come with an engine. Brains and racist tendencies are mostly mutually exclusive.
There’s the Prussian Iron Cross – it’s a Cross yet not sure how much it reminds me of the Christian faith.
The George Cross is part of us, a piece of that fantastic jigsaw puzzle that is Malta. If we had to start removing what is “foreign”, then where would we draw the line?
@ Harry Purdie & tony pace
Both wrong I’m afraid.
Canada changed its flag because it could since it enjoyed the status of a ‘Dominion’ or the equivalent of a State, however since the Queen was (and still is) its head of state, the term Dominion was used. Canada’s form of Independence came in 1982 when an amended British North America Act was repatriated.
Malta never enjoyed the status of Dominion and was administered through the British Colonial Office. Canada was not administered by the Colonial Office in the periods under discussion.
Jomar, as I said, Canada changed its flag on its own. Canada was independent before the repatriation of the BNA. That was only an insignificant formality and meant nothing to Canadians. I feel you’re a bit cross-legged here.
20-20 isn’t perfect vision, but standard vision – 20/10 is better than 20-20.
Hi there,
daphnecaruanagalizia.com – da best. Keep it going!
Nadine
I do not agree with replacing the George Cross from our flag, but if we really want to have something on our flag that is truly Maltese and which makes a statement of the Maltese way of life, then nothing beats the Luqa monument. We should tell the whole world that this is a country “ta l`ghala z………..:, where anything goes.
Unfortunately that is what we have become, a country were it is OK to break the law, whatever that law may be. As an example I invite anyone to go down to Paceville on a Saturday night and check whether the law regarding smoking in public places is observed. I could mention another one hundred and one instances but I`ll just stop here.