A word of advice to Labour, because Marisa is clearly f**king up bigtime
The magistrate and il-Farrell
When you targeted my 19-year-old son by putting him on a loop on Super One TV in the last general election, and when during the same period you targetted all three of my sons by means of an email sent out through the General Workers’ Union, it rebounded on you very badly.
There were people who were motivated out of their apathy to vote against the Labour Party, or not to vote for it when they had planned to do so, precisely because of that.
Now, when you target my marriage and seek to cause trouble between husband and wife – a relationship that the majority of electors still consider to be sacred – the same thing will happen to you again.
Your adviser cannot comprehend this, or the sentiments of your electors, because her view of marriage is very different. She doesn’t see the point of marriage except for convenience. She married her first husband to get British citizenship and to be able to work in England. Once she got that citizenship, she divorced him. She married her second husband because her biological clock was ticking. Once she had her child, she divorced him and wrote him out of her life. She even changed her daughter’s surname from his to hers.
Ordinarily, I would never have said these things, but today, they have to be said.
You are on very, very dangerous ground. The sight and sound of a major political party with an entire communications machine at its disposal bringing its full weight to bear on the marital bond of a newspaper columnist who criticises it is repulsive even to its own supporters.
And that’s why the only people who are egging you on are those who have never been married and never will be, or those who, like your adviser Marisa Micallef, have not one but two marriages lying in tatters behind her.
Nothing will ever make me leave my husband, or make my husband leave me – still less Super One TV, L-orizzont, It-Torca, Malta Today and Consuelo Herrera.
The only people you are driving away are those who thought, for even a brief few months, that Labour had changed. For a short while there, I took it for granted that Labour would win the next general election by default because the government has been weakened.
Now, as I see the Labour Party floundering without direction or even a name a full 18 months into Muscat’s leadership, I have changed my mind. The next general election is going to be as keenly fought as the last one.
This country cannot afford to have the Labour Party in power. That is its tragedy. The government may be weakened, but the opposition is dangerous. It has no principles and knows no boundaries.
And above all, it still fails to understand, even though so many years have passed since the dread days of Page 13 and police harassment, that in a democracy newspaper columnists criticise political parties, but political parties do not – ever – exact their revenge on them in a manner more befitting the People’s Republic of China than an EU member state.
Aside from the democratic principle, common sense should tell you that each time you mention me on Super One you drive many more thousands of people to this website, where they become engaged in reading about Consuelo Herrera, who you plan to make a judge after 2013, and who parties half-naked with your journalists, mayors, and MPs.
That is the opposite of clever. Your viewers don’t care about marital rows. They have them all the time themselves. But they do care about magistrates who cavort the way your protege magistrate does, which is why this site got almost as many views yesterday as it did on vote-counting day in March 2008.
Take my advice, because as you know through the political grapevine, on these matters it’s the best you can get.
In a curiously perverse professional way, it pains me to see your party tie itself up in so many knots, all the result of poor advice and a pathological inability to understand your audience.
47 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I can appreciate your concerns, Daphne, but I suspect that your ordeal may not be necessarily a question of some grand political strategy but, rather, an accumulation of bile within the guts of people who might have felt – rightly or wrongly – insulted by your opinions.
People are careless and then start flapping when their cupboards are opened for airing: testament to this is the flurry of attempts to take down certain personal pages from Facebook during the course of this weekend.
I do not share in the general glee surrounding your marital incident: these things happen in ALL relationships – particularly long and passionate ones. I am not someone who enjoys your style of writing – and it’s just because I happen to be a Labour supporter – but nonetheless can wish you and your family the best. One may disagree on opinions but one cannot, ever, wish for any possible negative impact on families.
If I may express my opinion on the recent developments, I can only say that all this mess is happening at a very strange time: why now? Could it be that there may be some other target which is to be hit through hitting Daphne Caruana Galizia? And how sure can one be that it is someone from the PN and not the PL who may have interest to do so?
In my honest opinion, Dr. Consuelo Scerri Herrera should have never been appointed to the Bench. Her public actions – most blatantly the advertising for the end of year masquerade at the Waterfront – was certainly not the type of activity someone in the judiciary should be associated with.
In addition to this, the cavorting with Perit Musumeci and the appointment of the latter as court expert in her magisterial inquiries is similarly in blatantly bad taste.
On a further note, I feel that with the opportunity of a seat for Musumeci in Parliament, the PN is in a fix: is it desirable to have such a controversial person within its ranks in parliament? Personally, I’d consider him not just a liability but a political time-bomb.
If I had to summarise the whole issue, Daphne, I was always of the opinion that in Malta, it is fools who go and wave flags at meetings and declare their undying love and support to a political party. The photos you have reproduced on your blogs over the last few days show – without any doubt – that there are transversal interests which span party lines.
These things always existed but the advent of the internet has made people accessible and anyone with half a brain to use Google properly can come up with all sorts of stuff which before we used to glean out of hushed-up gossip.
What we need is a general clean-up, not just of people but in the ways existing laws are applied: God knows how or who can make it. For sure, to do so, we must forget our political labels and work together as Maltese first and foremost.
Well said, Daphne.
Well said, Daphne. Keep it up.
Amen!
Long live Labour jew il-moviment tali-progressivi u liberali li jhobbu r-ricetti ta’ Dacoutros.
X’farsa ta’ partit.
U l-folla qamet f’daqqa
U ghajtet jien Maltija
Miskin min ikasbarni
Miskin minn jidhak bijja
U tal-Labour ma titghalmux. Tista tixxenja Gus, ghax nafu x’intom.
At least this time (see First magazine yesterday and the people at Dacoutros’ party, including Consie Wonsie) didn’t say of Dacoutros that he “forgot his meatballs in the oven”, as she did in a previous piece.
At 70, it’s about time she took retirement and faced reality.
As always right on the money, Daphne.
You’re perfectly right. What’s more distasteful than leaving your pregnant wife for an older woman just for the sake of power and money.
[Daphne – Robert did not leave his wife for power and money. His wife was the one with the money and she set him up in his profession. His office was in their home, which she owned. Consuelo is the one who was and is after power and money, and that is one reason she made her move. Robert, on the other hand, left because he is foolish. And one day he will wake up and understand just how foolish he was, if he hasn’t done so already. But by then it will be too late. On the other hand, he may simply not care. Some people are content to live wandering from party to party and bed to bed for as long as anyone will have them. It is as though they fear permanence.]
More distasteful is breaking up two marriages, not one – your own, and that of a man with a pregnant wife.
Marie Benoit must just love the fact that she being called Marie Bennoy on One TV. A tip for the newsreader, just write Benwaa on your script. That way you won’t get mixed up.
Be careful, because by calling yourself “my 1975 baby”, people might think that you are Consie referring to her toyboy. (Though I know perfectly well whom you are referring to, as would Tony Pace.)
Nice one. They don’t even know how to call their own.
Maybe you should also have told them the it’s “Daphne”, with an “A” sound, and not “DEfni”.
Let’s put it this way: If the “scarlet woman” involved were not the sister of Labour MP Jose Herrera, then One News (Julia Farrugia included) would have had a field day exposing Nationalist MP Robert Musumeci’s private (no, Cons, don’t get too excited, not his private parts – We’ll leave that to you) life.
Imagine the headlines:
MP Nazzjonalista jitlaq il-mara tqila biex ipoggi ma’ magistrata.
GonziPN imisshom jisthu! Imisshom inehhu l-magistrata mil-qorti! Arukazu ghal GonziPN!
The silly thing is, they would then be right.
Ohara, the government CANNOT REMOVE magistrates and judges unless it has 2/3 of all the House of Representatives to approve such a motion. This government is not the Labour one who plays musical chairs with magistrates and judges, but follows the rule of law. And that’s the law. In fact not even Judge Farrugia Sacco nor Mag Anthony Mizzi were removed from office even though they are still refusing to resign their sports federation chairmanships.
Granted. I was just trying to point out what Labour’s reaction would have been had the magistrate in question not been “one of theirs”.
Or when the whole lot of them say “GlAn BAdingfield”. Such class.
On One News they said attak sfrenat fuq Julia Farrugia u Marisa Micallef. Now this is the Julia Farrugia (yet another Facebook idiot) they referred to
Julia Farrugia all geared up for tomorrow … doing the final touches on Illum & MaltaToday
Yesterday at 7:22pm
6 people like this.
And there’s more
One of the people who clicked “likes this” was the advisor Marisa Micallef
Imagine trying to live you life by Facebook, and when past 50, at that. Some people are really trying to live the youth they apparently never had. It would have been better had they had a pretty wild youth, rather than embarrassing their pre-pubescent/adolescent children by trying to get their sexual kicks now.
They say a woman reaches her peak after 40. If that is the case, then why, oh why, do these kind of women need to make it oh-so-public?
@ O’Hara
Musumeci u Herrera jistghu jpoggu ma min irid – l-adulterju ma jiksirx ligijiet. Il-problema hija it-terra li qed jinghad li kien hemm fil-party tal-magistrat. Din hija sustanza illegali. Mela xi zghazugh jintbaghat il-habs – ghax jinqabad ipejjep il-haxixa – minn l-istess persuna li fil-parties taghha jintuzaw sustanzi illegali. Jekk dan tat-terra huwa veru, u jisghtu jingiebu provi tieghu, dan huwa kaz serjissimu li ghandu jigi nvestigat u jittiehdu passi fuqu.
The fact still remains that One News would have had a field day. Admit it.
One legitimate question comes to mind: what form of police presence was there at the Waterfront on NYE to screen against the issue or trafficking of illegal substances? Was it in line with what normally happens at other pubic parties?
If indeed there was a police presence, what were the outcomes of searches if these were carried out?
I am asking these questions because we all read the news reports following major events and they nearly always feature details of how many people were arrested and the drug finds achieved.
In this case, I don’t think I saw anything and whilst I hope that the fact that a magistrate may have been one of organisers could have served as a deterrent, I think that human nature being what it is may have also deterred our boys in blue from keeping away.
[Daphne – My dear, the boys in blue party WITH Consuelo. She went through a whole period of shagging policemen. Believe me, I know.]
Which makes the need for answers even more urgent, no?
This is getting bad, and the Minister for Justice and the courts should come down heavily on these type of people who are ruining his chances of ever getting re-elected in a difficult electoral district. Get your house in order, Carm, and see that there are no further scandals in our courts. Strengthen the Commission for the Administration of Justice so that it can act.
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
There is very little that the Minister for Justice can do in this case. The law does not grant him the power to remove a magistrate or judge. Neither does it give him the power to “strengthen” the Commission for the Administration of Justice. To do that, you would need to change the Constitution, and that, as far as I know, requires a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives. Ironically, impeaching a member of the judiciary also requires a two-thirds majority.
So it seems that no steps can be taken against the Magistrate in question unless the “moviment progressiv u moderat” decides to play ball.
For the Opposition to play ball, the Government would first have to signal that it wants to do something. The Minister could set said ball rolling by asking the Commission to investigate the more serious allegations.
[Daphne – Like the Opposition is going to help impeach Consuela Herrera, after partying with her and Super One, and when her brother is a Labour MP who, it has to be said, must be far from thrilled at his sister’s behaviour, though blood will always be thicker than water. And then, when her shag Robert is sitting in parliament – because he’s next in line for a seat when Dalli leaves – what’s he going to do? X’tahwid.]
What an unfortunate choice of name, unless you chose it deliberately.
Manuel,
Further to Daphne’s comment, the law, as it stands, says that the Commission does not need to be prompted by anyone to start an investigation. It can do so on its own initiative.
Yeah, like Musumeci will vote for her being impeached.
@Alfred and Daphne
I know that the Commission does not need prompting to investigate, but what’s wrong with the Government sending out a signal that all allegations of improper behaviour involving members of the bench will be looked into? Even on a purely political level, if the Commission unearths proof of behaviour seriously incompatible with a position on the Bench, it would embarrass the Pl to be seen not to co-operate in such a serious matter.
The Musumeci-in-Parliament scenario does confound the situation, but should that prompt the Government to remain passive? Is the Governement willing to strengthen the impression that its back-benchers are holding it to ransom?
This should not stop the government i.e. the minister for justice from starting the procedures. I assume we will end up with yet another cowardly move from the opposition but that should not stop government from doing its job. If the process is not started you cannot blame the opposition but if you do and the opposition votes against it, then it will be the public who will judge.
Arthur: All the instruments are there for it to act. Why it doesn’t act is another, much more complex issue to answer. Again, it’s one of those issues where politics are put aside as it’s more convenient not to act rather than act… As soon as someone tries taking action, we’ll have a floodgate bursting and all sorts of messy accusations of interference on one of the three pillars of democracy shall be levelled and we’d be faced with an institutional crisis which could block the country from moving forward.
@ O’Hara. I am not arguing against what you said. I have no doubt that it would have been as you say. What I am trying to point out is that it is better to stay focused on the crime – if a crime was committed – rather than about other things. I hope you get my point that this is very serious.
Mill-websajt tas-Souper Wann:
“Incidentalment bhalissa jinsab ghaddej attakk moqziez u mill-aktar viljakk fuq l-istess Musumeci permezz tal-internet fuq blogg li huwa notorju ghal dawn it-tip ta’ attakki.”
Bunch of morons. Note the use of that word beloved of Maltese journalists: “moqziez.” And note that they (deliberately or otherwise) missed the whole point.
Considering your exposure of the whole sordid affair (make that affairS) I think a ”public” statement by the PM would surely put her in her place, and if she has any dignity take the hint and piss off. She is a disgrace to the judiciary and hopefully they are dealing with her in their own subtle way.
Tony,
The PM can’t make a public statement but can ask the Commission for the Administration of Justice to examine the matter. What he can do is ask Musumeci to step down and ask the Police for a report on the NYE bash. Period.
On the other hand, the Chief Justice can stop the allocation of new cases to Magistrate Herrera until the matter is cleared but, in these cases, this could take years.
So, really, where does all this leave us?
If I were either Magistrate Herrera or Perit Musumeci, I could seek legal redress – which could magnify the matter – or just, simply, bow out gracefully and play the victim. I don’t imagine either of these things are likely to happen – particularly the latter.
For sure, the silence of the general media is in stark contrast to the way the Maltese net community is buzzing – be it on FB, blogs or fora.
Whoa there: “seek legal redress” – are you joking? Can you imagine the birthday party pics and other ones still to be brought to light exhibited in court? The pointed questions asked by counsel? But then it will be held “in camera” not to frighten the horses.
Hamalla u pastaza. Il-hama li twaddab kollu jigi fuqek. You are so egocentric that you have to attack others not to face your reality. I don’t think you can ever be nice to anyone actually and I really wish that the Nationalist party will come some day and rebuke you. You are doing more harm to our party than you are aware of.
Here’s an elf trying to come across as a “Nationalist supporter”!
DB means Dead Bodies. Min haseb li ser icappas it-tajn ma’ Daphne (allavolja ma naqbilx ma hafna mill-kitba taghha specjalment kontra r-religjon) mar zmerc u zmerc sew. Jjekk hasbu l-klikka tal-imdejqin, pogguti u ta dawk li jiffangaw fil-parties, illi ser ihammgu lil Daphne ghax kellha tabxa familjari zghira li mhix kbira daqs il-hmieg u l-adulterji li hiereg fuq il-Magistrat u l-Perit, allura jishtu l-mument li tkellmu kif tkellmu bejniethom, ghax fosthom kien hemm xi spjuni li marru jxandru kollox lil Daphne. Il-hdura, hammallagni, vulgarita’ ta’ dawn in-nies ‘puliti’ hija ikbar mill-kitba moqzieza ta dik li hlief tiffanga b’xejn u tizzatta bil 1975 babies fil-Mauritius.
Daphne is one of the few people who truly understand politics in Malta. And I mean understands. I admire your stance and if only it were made more public, maybe the ignorance prevailing through half of Malta (minus 8000 1st preference votes) will decrease, just like my respect for the Labour Party.
“[Daphne – My dear, the boys in blue party WITH Consuelo. She went through a whole period of shagging policemen. Believe me, I know.]”
Perhaps you should reconsider what you said here. It does not sound right and you are insulting members of the Force.
[Daphne – If they consider it an insult to be reminded that they had sex with her, they shouldn’t have done so in the first place. Anyway, come on, she’s not that much of a dog, for heaven’s sake.]
Just for the record, the owner of the bathroom centre is known as Il-Farell i.e. a single r. He bears no relation to the Farrell family.
Forsi jtiha kamra tal-banju b’xejn b’Cassar Darien gharwien fiha, b’warda f’halqu, bhal dawk ir-reklami ta’ cacu ta’ zmien Mintoff.
Ommi, ma, x’textix!
Mrs Galizia, you should be ashamed for having written this article. Your allegiance to your part is obvious. Birds of the same feather flock together
What a sad, sad world……
Whilst I am in agreement with the phrase that dirty linen should not be washed in public, some of the statements and allegations (true or false) as well as the blatantly distasteful comments with explicit reference to private lives would have been best left unsaid. As it is, it degrades the quality of the debate. It is the message which should be attacked and not the messenger. And I thought that in politics an opponent is an adversary and not ‘the enemy’. We’ve also seen the MZPN get all iffy about the ‘I Hate Gonzi group’ – if we use the same reasoning with enemies then we will all descend into the pit of anarchy.