Maltese radicals – an oxymoron

Published: November 29, 2009 at 9:32am

umalta

Radical people in Malta are just so not radical. People will only stick their head above the parapet if they have been reassured first that there is a ceasefire and their facial features are safe.

So you have people acting outrageous and playing at pushing the boundaries while all the time they are betrayed by their ‘sit and obey’ Maltese upbringing which reveals them for the pussies they are and which makes them, as the vernacular has it, afraid of their own shadow.

The campus newspaper Realta is banned by the university authorities because of a rude story, and what do the publishers do? They obey the ban, which I find unbelievable.

It wouldn’t have been me doing that, I can tell you. I would have carried on publishing it and let them try to stop me – because here’s the thing. The university does not have the legal power to ban the publication of anything. Not even our law courts can do that, except in very restricted cases to do with privacy and libel.

The university might be within its rights to ban distribution of the paper within the delineated confines of its property, but that’s about it and even that is open to challenge. The university is not private. It is a state university.

Let’s be practical here. What does the university plan to do if attempts are made to distribute a paper whose publication is permitted fully under the laws of Malta?

Perhaps it will train up an army of those people who sit around in blue shirts staring into space in glass cubicles and pretending to be messengers, and get them to make themselves useful by fighting the good war against a student newspaper. Other than that – what can it do? Is it going to expel the culprits? I’d like to see it try.

The university would be ill advised to pursue fresh action against Realta on campus. The parallels with Beijing would be too uncomfortable. They are too uncomfortable already. The university understands that it has embarrassed itself and given the offending article a much wider readership than it would have had otherwise. But it is not going to take the initiative of backing down.

So it has to be forced to back down. This does not happen with protests, articles in the newspapers and complaints. It happens by the simple expedient of publishing the newspaper, distributing it on campus and forcing the university into a position where it must choose between turning a blind eye (bad for male egos in the short term) and waging a full-scale war against a student news-sheet (a long-term ruckus with dangerous implications).

Universities are there to encourage reading, and not to burn and destroy publications which use naughty words. The university knows this, which is why its library is replete with all forms of obscenity between the covers of literature.

But instead of ignoring the university authorities altogether, which is what I would have done – and that’s not insubordination but standing up for your rights at law and pointing out that the university does not have the remit to ban publications – what are the publishers of Realta doing?

They have set up a ‘front against censorship’ and are lobbying against ‘outdated laws’. That should put a rocket under the university, I must say.

How exasperating. Somebody please tell them that they are the ones who are censoring themselves, by being so dreadfully obedient. The university tells them not to publish their newspaper and they say ‘OK’, then go off and protest against the injustice of it all.

You see, that’s what the education of Maltese children does: it trains them from birth never to question authority and always to obey orders unless you can do something underhand to get away with it.

These university radicals are so keen to follow the rules that they have even written to the university’s ombudsman asking him to condemn the ban on the grounds that it breaches the students’ charter.

You know, I’m beginning to find all this really exhausting. My baby-pink Ed Hardy shoes with the skulls and roses on are more radical than this radical group.

There’s only one thing these people should do, and it’s not radical but commonsense strategy. Face down the university. Ignore the ban and proceed as usual. Produce the newspaper, print it, and distribute it on campus.

There can be no adverse consequences to doing that – and believe me, good boys and girls, the sky won’t fall on your head if you don’t obey. But there will be highly adverse consequences for the university if it sends in its troops.

There’s something else the publishers should do to frame the absurdity of the university’s ban: put Realta on the internet, and expose just how the university’s thinking on the meaning and implications of publication has not entered the internet age yet, even at this late stage in the game.

The university can send out its messengers to moan and groan and gather up hard copies of Realta, but the internet is more convenient and widely accessible. Once Realta is on the internet, it is effectively present on campus on every student’s personal laptop and every university desktop. And there’s nothing the university can do about that.

What is it going to do – send out spies to look over students’ shoulders when they’re at their computers? Funny how the university’s bosses are still stuck in the pre-internet age.

Putting Realta on the internet will also put the focus on a question that no one has thought to ask yet: did the university ban the newspaper to prevent students reading it (which is where the internet comes in), or did it ban it in that parental ‘not in my house’ sort of way (“I won’t have any dirty magazines under my roof!”).

Unless the university hasn’t hitched its wagon to the internet yet, the reason for the ban must be the latter one, and in that case, it hasn’t got a moral or legal leg to stand on either.

This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.




56 Comments Comment

  1. Franco Rizzo says:

    Hi Daphne, I would like to thank you for your commentary today. However I just have to make clear a few points.
    I’ve just been on the phone with editor Mark Camilleri and when I ask him about the availability of Issue 8 to continue distribution, he told me it is out of print already. However, doesn’t mean issue 9 won’t be on campus, for that matter…

    Secondly, the strategy of being formal and obeying rules, it is just a strategy. What if the Ombudsman doesn’t take action? What if the protest will be stopped? Then it is we who would be on the right in condemning authorities, and that there needs to be serious reconsideration in the authorities.

    All in all, your comments are greatly appreciated, and they will be seriously taken into consideration.

  2. Mario Frendo says:

    Realta is already on the internet.

    http://www.realtamadwarek.org/ir-realta/

    [Daphne – That’s good, because it makes a mockery of the ban: ‘printed version banned on campus but there’s nothing we can do about the on-line version’. And this begs the question: what happens if students print out the on-line version in the university library? The university authorities were thinking through their underpants on this one.]

  3. Dominic Fenech says:

    I’m not sure this is fair on Mark Camilleri. He is a tough nut, and quite fearless, and certainly no product of the stereotype upbringing you mention. Such products abound on campus, of course, as evidenced by the lack of solidarity, or even sympathy, shown by other student societies.

    Also, there was no evident complying on the part of the producers of Realta. It was the university beadles, under rector’s orders, who removed the copies from the distribution points. The students involved have been doing more or less what you advise, i.e., make the paper available any which way.

    • John Schembri says:

      @ Dominic Fenech: in your opinion was issue 8 of Ir-Realta suitable material for Junior College students who have a right to be on the University campus? If you were the rector would you have left copies of issue 8 of Ir-Realta available for everyone including under 18s at Student House?

      I am against censorship, but I’m all out in favour of material classification and the protection of our under 18 children who attend Junior College which is part of the University.

      [Daphne – John, my point about the internet applies to those aged 16 and 17, too. You don’t want them coming across Realta on campus, while forgetting that they have access to anything and everything via the simple expedient of an internet connection. So you’re going to protect your 16-year-olds from printed versions of Realta on campus. How do you keep them away from the on-line version at home, at school, or wherever else they may be? For that matter, how do you protect them from the printed version off campus? And more to the point, why do you imagine that 16-year-olds need protection from dirty stories?]

      • Matthew says:

        People like John Schembri and Juanito Camilleri are so naive that I find it hard to believe they are adults.

        The last person whom I remember making it his life’s mission to ‘protect the children’ was Holden Caulfield. He was 16 years old, fictional, and ended up in a lunatic asylum after trying to erase all the vulgar graffiti in New York City.

      • John Schembri says:

        Daphne, hopefully I’ll get a reply from Mr Fenech.

        It’s not a question of protecting our children; it’s more a question of approval. Can I put my mind at rest as a parent of a teenager that at the University they are not sending the wrong messages to our teenagers? When teenagers come across such filth they know that their responsible parents don’t approve of such things. Should they find adult material at the distribution points with the APPROVAL of the University administration?

        The discussion is on what should be allowed or approved on campus where teenage students have a right to roam freely.

        The rector sent the right message when he called in the police; he is responsible for anything that happens at the University and is making a statement: He doesn’t approve of the distribution of this filth in a place which falls under his responsibility.

        What if a mother is caught reading the filth in that issue together with her 16 year old son, by her estranged husband? Wouldn’t the father call in the police and gain custody of his son from the family court?

        For your last question my answer is simple: teenagers need protection from dirty stories for the same reasons a parent wants to protect her children from crucifixes.

      • H.P. Baxxter says:

        Those “teenagers” could teach you a thing or two about the sort of filth they get up to. Suit you, Sir, suit you.

      • John Schembri says:

        I think that Gonzi has the problem of succeeding Fenech Adami. Eddie started his march in the late seventies and slowly but steadily became prime minister, lost and won elections and got us to our destination, EU membership. Eddie did not change his ministers much.

        These puerile tantrums have their roots in a distorted reasoning which goes like this: “I was with Eddie when in the 80s ……Gonzi was nowhere to be seen”, ” I was chosen as minister before even Gonzi was an MP by Eddie himself”, ” I sacrificed my legal /architectural office to become minister now why shouldn’t I have some important post” and “Unless he gives me THAT building permit I will keep rocking the boat. Now what was my last one? Was it the electricity tariffs or wind turbines?” “ What does this Johnnie-come-lately think he is? I can hold him from his balls with my parliamentary vote.”

        In the meantime people like me patiently observe.

      • John Schembri says:

        @ Matthew: thanks for associating me with the Rector of the University. I feel sorry for you because you are led to believe that Vella Gera’s writing is material which can or should be read by anyone who happens to be on campus.

        The University Rector is duty bound to keep the University open for every student, including the Junior College students. Should he make the university a no-go area for students under 18 just because some dirty minded middle aged man wants to publish and distribute his adult material on the university grounds?

      • Matthew says:

        John,

        The difference between allowing something and approving of it is at the very core of democracy. I think the real problem is that you haven’t grasped this concept.

        The Chinese government seeks to ban all that it does not approve of. Western democracies work in exactly the opposite way. We believe that permitting the act of publication does not imply approval of the content.

        Hence, you are free to stand on a soap box in front of the rectorate and argue very loudly that the Holocaust never happened. And your audience is free to boo.

      • Tal-Muzew says:

        What if these small children got hold of the newspaper while visiting the University?

        http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091125/local/small-waves-and-minor-earthquakes

      • John Schembri says:

        @ Matthew:Re-read what I wrote and what was the context in what I wrote it.

        As a parent I don’t want that a Junior College student be exposed to the material on issue 8 of Ir-Realta. As a parent I am duty bound by law to see that my under 18 son is not exposed to things which are exclusively for adults. The university rector is there to support me.

        [Daphne – What do you do about the internet, John? Stand over your son’s shoulder while he’s using it? What about evenings out with girls – do you chaperone him to see that there’s no heavy petting or worse?]

        We’re talking about exposure of adult material to our teenagers (16 & 17 year olds) here. I don’t know why you wrote WE, but if you are in the team of Ir-Realta I suppose you distributed issue 8 of this student magazine also at the Junior College. If you didn’t can you explain to us why?

      • Chris Ripard says:

        I can’t believe all the fuss about what is basically just a stream of pseudo (?) sex-crazed imagination. It’s the sort of thing that seems to turn on certain deluded people from the local theatre scene (and possibly, pre-pubescent teens).

        It really shouldn’t have been published, but it was. Big deal!

      • John Schembri says:

        Daphne, here we are discussing what should happen at the University, not what happens in my home.

        [Daphne – I think you have to admit that you’ve lost this one, John. Sixteen-year-olds don’t need protection from naughty stories, and they especially don’t need the grown-ups to ban a naughty story in a newsletter at the university on their behalf.]

        In the meantime I am waiting for some replies from Mr Fenech and Matthew.

        I hope that they won’t prove your point. The liberal and progressive intelligentsia at our university should not be afraid of some naive person’s old-fashioned medieval arguments.

        Or?

        [Daphne – I think they just can’t be bothered. You’re obviously struggling to keep up with the 21st century.]

      • John Schembri says:

        Daphne I did not lose this one, there are ways and means to see what anyone is watching on the internet, let alone a smart sixteen year old on a home computer.

        I can let you use my computer, but I remain the administrator of my computer. The 21st century technology gives administrators all the tools they need to see what’s happening on their PC’s, and our smart kids know that. Enough said.

        [Daphne – What, you mean your kids don’t have their own computers? That’s unbelievable. And you really shouldn’t be spying on a 16-year-old. Monitoring for risk of drugs, yes – controlling what he reads and watches, no. Besides which, it is pointless. You can control YOUR computer at home. You can’t control what he downloads on computers elsewhere.]

        We have no answers on this thread not because they couldn’t be bothered but because one is busy presiding over the graduation ceremonies at the Uni and handing out Mintoff’s famous Karti ta’ l-incova’. The other is afraid of answering a simple question.
        No forthcoming answers could also mean they lost the argument.

        [Daphne – I can’t answer for Professor Fenech, but I can certainly answer for Matthew, given that I gave birth to him almost 24 years ago and know exactly how he thinks (clearly). I imagine that he can’t be bothered banging his head against that particular brick wall, other than which he lives in London and must feel particularly divorced from weird island-bubble arguments about not allowing dirty stories on campus in case a stray 16-year-old picks up a printed copy by accident and is corrupted for life.]

      • John Schembri says:

        There goes mummy, defending her poor kid.

        [Daphne – Not at all, John. My sons are all extremely independent and self-reliant. I made sure of that, having had rather extensive experience of Maltese mummy’s boys and how utterly tedious they are in every way, including their conversation. You wanted an explanation, so I thought I’d give you one. I’m not the one who thinks a parent should hide or ban naughty stories in case my 16-year-old son reads them by mistake. You are. And he’s not a kid. He’s an adult – the very same age I was when I had three children.]

  4. fanny says:

    ‘Widely accepted projections based on ballot results show Swiss have voted to ban new minarets.’ Latest figures show the ban to be at about 59%. The referendal question asked was :Do you accept that a ban on the construction of minarets should be inscribed in the Swiss Constitution?`

    They would have been minarets with no muezzins and there are already 4 minarets in Ch which have never caused any problems. But people voting have against ^, widened their arguments to : burkas, female mutilation, the sharia laws, dumped it all into one package and voted against the minarets. There is also the case of 2 Swiss hostages held by Ghadafi on a trumped-up charge.

    Even though I dislike Islam profoundly, mainly for its treatment of women, I voted for the minarets because I really couldn’t see a logical reason not to.

    So there you are, Daphne, another referendum come and gone…just as you like/don’t like them.

  5. Leonard says:

    Is Lawrence Gonzi taking do-it-yourself lessons in hara kiri?
    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091129/local/joe-borg-slams-pms-handling-of-commissioner-nomination

    [Daphne – No, but clearly Joe Borg is. It’s been a long time since I last read such an embarrassing public display of greed, excruciating self-praise, tantrum-throwing and self-seeking behaviour. ‘I want, therefore I must have.’ Discretion is not a quality many Maltese men in public life have, hence the ceaseless parade of ungentlemanly behaviour. Someone should remind Joe Borg that he’s been at the EU trough for five years and that it looks – well, slightly grasping – to make such a fuss about being wrenched away from his salary. Funny how he didn’t mention the money in his interview, like that isn’t a major factor. It’s just so painful to watch. I think we’re all a little tired now of having the media dominated by men throwing tantrums and stamping their feet because they didn’t get what they assume is theirs by right. Disgraceful. Why don’t they all just blinking shut up. It’s all about them. Maltese mothers of sons have so much to answer for.]

    • Anthony Farrugia says:

      But once your snout has been at the trough for five years, the next five year term becomes a God – given right. According to the interview, the wife was on the blower to Brussels to bring hubby up to speed once the news broke locally.
      Both the above and the Arrigo/Vella sordid debacle can be summarised in one word: GREED.

    • Twanny says:

      Don’t you think that Gonzi should have had the guts to tell him he was not being reappointed to his face?

      [Daphne – I think he should have understood that he was never going to be reappointed. It was obvious to me and others sitting out here, reading the newspapers and working it out. So why wasn’t it obvious to him? I guess he isn’t really that sharp a cookie after all, or maybe he’s one of those people who only believes and sees what he wants to believe and see. No, the prime minister shouldn’t have told him he wasn’t going to be reappointed. He was there for a fixed, five-year term – end of story. The assumption of reappointment was his own and no one else’s. Now he’s being as though he was sacked for no good reason halfway through office.]

      • Twanny says:

        Pure sophistry. Many EU members have reappointed their Commissioners – some for a third term. Having won international and local approval, Joe Borg had every right and reason to expect, at the very least, a fighting chance of reappointment.

        And even if, as you contend, his non-appointment was a foregone conclusion, Gonzi should still have had the courage and the decency to tell him so to his face.

        [Daphne – I happen to know for a fact that Joe Borg was offered a meeting at which he was to be told, but turned it down when he realised what the news would be. You should know, too, that he spent the whole of last week cancelling meetings and lunch appointments scheduled for the remainder of his tenure, presumably because he intends to spend the rest of his time in Brussels sulking and stamping his feet. For example, he had his secretary ring up every member of a Chamber of Advocates delegation going to Brussels this week, to invite them to lunch, and all of them accepted. And then in a shocking display of dreadful manners, after John Dalli’s nomination was announced last week, he had her ring them all again to call off the lunch. He has done the same with other delegations. You seem unable to distinguish between the two separate issues here: 1. should he or should he not have been informed personally ahead of the announcement, and 2. should he or should he not have behaved like somebody raised in a slum by abandoning all discretion and throwing a highly public tantrum. It’s 2. that I’m talking about here. Where I come from, you just don’t do that sort of thing. Unfortunately, we are dealing with two Maltas: one in which that kind of cheap and tacky behaviour is acceptable, and one in which it is not.]

        (PS: This is the second time I am posting this comment. I am reposting on the assumption it was deleted in error. As one who professes to be Malta’s leading liberal, you would never resort to censorship – would you?)

        [Daphne – I don’t bother checking the spam folder. There are too many suggestions there which would interest only somebody like Noel Arrigo, many of them involving the sort of things he sells. Over and above that, I think it’s about time grown-ups like you learned to distinguish between censorship and editing and, in response not to you but to others who have made similar accusations: if you wish to libel others under under a false name, start your own blog and do it there.]

    • Leonard says:

      Can’t see the relevance of your comments, Daphne. We’re not in the days when the king had to send his runner thousands of miles to communicate a message.

      [Daphne – The point is that there was NO MESSAGE to communicate. Joe Borg was appointed to serve a fixed term from 2004 to 2009. When that term is up, it’s up. He was the only one assuming anything and – worse – taking it for granted. Even if he thinks the prime minister was an inconsiderate ass for not telling him ahead of time, there is absolutely no justification for the gross ill manners and poor judgement of giving an interview like that. What can I say without sounding like a terrible snob? Breeding will out. The sense of entitlement these people have is horrendous. And their manners are just shockingly appalling. ‘I want to be a minister!’ ‘I want to be a chairman!’ ‘I want to be reappointed!’ ‘Please sir, may I have some more?’ On second thoughts, drop the please because it’s not a request but a demand. Outrageous. The tragedy of Joe Borg’s foolish mistake – now that’s a mistake, not Arrigo’s – is that it is his swansong.]

      • Tony Pace says:

        Just in case we start feeling TOO sorry for Dr. Borg, see below article from London Timesonline.com

        THIRTEEN outgoing European commissioners are to receive golden goodbyes amounting to £4.5m, an average of nearly £350,000 each. The payouts follow the appointment of a new set of 27 commissioners last Friday by Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the commission.

        Even those who have been in office for less than a year will receive six-figure sums. The farewell packages for the 13 who have not been reappointed include a resettlement allowance of a month’s salary and a three-year “transitional allowance” of 40%-65% of final pay, as well as the reimbursement of travel and relocation expenses.

        “The European commission is completely out of touch,” said Lorraine Mullally, director of Open Europe, the London-based think tank. “Despite the recession there has been no attempt to bring down the enormous salaries and payoffs that commissioners enjoy.”

        The three departing vice-presidents are getting the largest payoffs: they are Günter Verheugen of Germany, Margot Wallstrom of Sweden and Jacques Barrot, a Frenchman.
        Related Links

        * France foils UK to secure EU finance job

        * Britain tries to stop France taking key EU job

        The biggest recipients will be Verheugen and Wallstrom, who have both had 10 years in Brussels on a vice-president’s salary of £241,200.

        Even commissioners who have hardly served any time are entitled to lavish settlements. Poland’s Pawel Samecki, who is leaving his job as regional policy commissioner after just six months, will receive a golden parachute worth £256,000.

        iz-zikk ola…………….

      • Miffy says:

        Maybe he assumed he was there on a permanent basis, and now realises that any nest he may have bought himself there is, well … useless.

        [Daphne – Not really. He’s got a whacking great golden handshake and a huge pension, so he can spend his time hanging around the Grand Place and reading, starting with a basic guide to good manners.]

      • Anthony Farrugia says:

        Joe Borg is the guy who, when chosen as commissioner in 2004, said that he would only do one term in Brussels because in 2009 he would be 58 and too old to take up national – read Maltese – politics after a five year absence from his local turf; he was looking to going back to lecturing at Uni.

        Methinks he protests too much or it might be a case of hell hath no fury like an EU Commissioner’s wife scorned. It appears that timesofmalta.com has decided not to put up any posts critical of his attitude, interview and mentioning the golden handshake.

    • Miffy says:

      “Maltese mothers of sons have so much to answer for”

      Bingo!

      I was very tempted to write to the editor of Pink last week. There was a feature about two (youngish) widowers, both of whom have children, two of these children being under 10 when their mother died.

      I was particularly struck by something their father said (and bear in mind that his small children had just been deprived of their mother): one of the hardest things for him following his wife’s death was getting used to doing the ironing.

      It’s much like my mother-in-law (when I had just got married) trying to make conversation by asking how I iron “his” shirts. She was stunned when I replied that he does them himself.

  6. Yanika Borg says:

    Hi Daphne,

    The Realta publication is online! Here is the link to an article we had written regarding this: http://www.insiteronline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=701:ir-realta-publish-newspaper-online&catid=1:news&Itemid=1

    Best regards,
    Yanika Borg
    Insiteronline.com
    Web Editor

  7. david s says:

    Daphne, about Joe Borg: it’s so unbelievable that even someone like him gets engulfed by the gravy train. He should be ashamed of himself with those cheap remarks about the prime minister. Perhaps Dr Borg should also recall how Dr Gonzi won the last election against all odds, while he was comfortable in Brussels. He should make a public apology to the PM. Shame on him!

  8. I found you a wonderful example of “the peepil”. He or she contributes regularly in timesofmalta.com with a great sense of acceptance, democrarcy, knowledge and tolerance:

    Galea. L (3 hours, 55 minutes ago)
    Simon Oosterman
    The rest of the citizens have the right not to have their rights trampled on because someone objects to a crucifix. This is especially so when it was a foreigner who thinks she can change the culture and insult her host country at the same time. If she doesn’t like it she can send her children to a school which does not have a crucifix and better still get out of the country. No one sent for her. Same applies to those foreigners in Malta who think that they may have it their way. We shall not bend to accomodate you. We have our customs, traditions and beliefs and it you don’t like them get out. NO ONE SENT FOR YOU. YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE. As for a Maltese person trying the same stance, the minority can never impose their will on the majority. By the way, why do you not want to look at a crucifix? Does it bother you and if it does why?

    • trevawaqeva says:

      Don’t you just love the peepil? And we have so many of them. Makes my Sunday afternoons reading the papers a most humorous affair.

  9. Giordano Bruno says:

    “…the minority can never impose their will on the majority”: presumably, the conclusion is that Mr. Galea thinks the majority may justifiably impose its will on the minority.

    And it would seem this also applies to the denial of civil rights. Isn’t this why Malta has no divorce law in spite of the fact that this right exists in all other countries bar one or two? Isn’t this why Catholics and those of the right political hue are preferred in all sorts of “unofficial” ways?

    This is the kind of “democracy” practised in Malta. The understanding of true democracy and civil rights is still extremely warped among the Maltese population in general but this attitude is not limited to the general population only: it also flourishes among those who in former times purported to teach us what democracy is all about and promised that, when they would be returned to power, Malta would finally get a taste of what democracy and respect for freedom, equality and non-discrimination consist of.

    So much for promises. “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help” (Psam 146, King James version).

  10. Norman Wisdom says:

    So Dr Borg’s time is up. I don’t understand why the PM should have told him that he will not be re-appointed, or who will be appointed after him. Why should he expect to be re-apponted? Most of the commissioners weren’t. But no, the Maltese baby throws a tantrum. Incredible. I really had a lot of respect for the guy; but not anymore.

  11. Mat Deplum says:

    What’s wrong? These tactical moves and discontent amongst people in the same party – sounds like a bunch of teenagers fighting for the vocalist role in a rock band.

    I am not political expert (and post here because maybe you guys can illuminate me), but don’t you think the two-party system is failing miserably more then ever? Maybe it’s time for democracy, and for a third party – and I do not necessarily mean AD?

    On the other hand, it’s probably just wishful thinking. The changing of the seat arrangement in the Piano project, is a symbolic sign that things will never change.

    • Why is the two-party system “failing miserably more than ever”? Electorally (i.e. democratically) it has been thriving for the last five years and that’s what counts, not how you seat your MPs.

  12. Claude Sciberras says:

    On the Joe Borg Item in The Sunday Times I must say that washing your dirty linen in public is never a good idea and if the Prime Minister was not very diplomatic in the way he dealt with the nomination Dr. Borg could have handled his regrets better and with more dignity.

    On the other hand if Dr. Borg was in any way given an impression he was being considered then it would only be fair that all those involved would be informed before they can read about it in the papers. I think the same had happened with the presidential nomination and if I remember well the PN parliamentary group were not at all pleased.

    I think the PM’s office could be a little bit more careful with these nominations and try to communicate decisions better through the ranks. All they need to do is to inform everyone at the same time.

  13. KVZTABONA says:

    May I point out that this is a very confusing thread! One minute it’s about Ir-Realta, then about Joe Borg and then about the crucifix.

    Let’s confuse it a bit more and talk about Heritage Saved. Many thanks, Daphne, for such splendiferous coverage in today’s Flair.

    The exhibition is open at Castille until Tuesday, I believe.

    Do support Malta’s national trust Din L-Art Helwa and visit the exhibition – and if possible buy a set of prints, the entire proceeds of which will form the nucleus of funds for the restoration of the Church of Our Lady of Victories.

  14. Miffy says:

    Much as I dislike Dalli, and much as Joe Borg may be right in feeling miffed at not being informed officially that he will not be re-appointed EU Commissioner, did he really have to go blabbing to Maltastar? ( http://www.maltastar.com/pages/ms09dart.asp?a=5759 )

    The more time passes, the more such people show that the only thing they are interested in is their pocket, and not the good of the country.

  15. Spiru says:

    Donnu ha jmut bil-guh ghax ha jnehhuh minn Brussell.

    Sorry, but the English version would not be so direct.

  16. Antoine Vella says:

    Miffy,

    Maltastar copied the story from The Sunday Times, including Joe Borg’s quotes. They didn’t actually talk to him.

    Note to maltastar.com so-called ‘journalists’: ” He found out from T.V. via his wife.” Who is T.V.? Tony Vella?

    If you want to shorten television (but you shouldn’t, in a news story) it’s TV.

    • Herbs says:

      Antoine, you should not be using capital letters either. It’s tv.

      Leonard and co might think you’re part of the “peepil”.

      I have been reading a book and it’s all about these mystical creatures called the “peepil”. They tend to be ignorant, left-wing and discrimated against by the so called “DEMOKRISTJANI” – dawk li jhobbu lil Kristu.

      • Antoine Vella says:

        Herbs,

        As a matter of fact I had written tv at first but changed it to TV after I checked an online dictionary and, moreover, noticed that practically all television websites used capitals.

    • Anna says:

      Via his wife? As in going to Bugibba via Birkirkara?

    • Leonard says:

      It’s not Tony Vella, it’s someone like Dr. Frank ‘n’ Furter.

  17. maryanne says:

    Joe Borg was once Minister for Foreign Affairs. I would have thought that he would deal with the matter in a more diplomatic way. But I guess the less you expect from people, the less disappointed you are.

  18. Ian says:

    Whereas I personally would not have gone about it in the same crass manner, I am under the impression that the PM himself had indicated that Joe Borg was being considered for re-nomination…in which case, the PM should have had the decency of informing him directly. Anyway, what is it about Gonzi that seems to make him unable to face his own people squarely in the eyes and say “NO”?

    • Joe S says:

      Well said, Ian.

      • Jean says:

        Correct Ian. In this blog, the reference of Joe Borg being told that only two scenarios are being considered has been left out.

        Dr Gonzi made a good minister but is now showing his limits as prime minister. Remember he could not face telling ex-ministers they were not being reappointed but sent them a text message!

  19. Question:

    Why is there so much talk of Joe Borg on this thread? Is he a Maltese radical . . . or just an oxymoron?

  20. David Buttigieg says:

    Back to an earlier article – an article and not a comment on timesofmalta.com:

    “Meanwhile 28-year-old hotel security guard Elton Abdilla of Zurrieq was charged with threatening a witness who was going to testify in today’s jury.”

    • Anthony Farrugia says:

      This is better than the Realta fracas. Obviously the court has prohibited the publication of the names of all involved. Will the evidence be heard behind closed doors?

Leave a Comment