De Marco kellu l-GATZ
Partit Laburista Director of Communications Kurt Farrugia (I’m so glad they chose a poison dwarf, because I’m really missing Jason Micallef) has written to ‘Tat-Tajms’ once more to object to something on his leader’s behalf.
His leader couldn’t write the letter himself ‘because of his leg’.
———-
The Times, Letters to the Editor, today
Joseph Muscat on Guido de Marco
Kurt Farrugia, director of communications, Partit Laburista, Ħamrun
The report on parliamentary proceedings on September 29 quoted the Labour leader as saying that “Despite criticism he had met persons from the opposition, including the present President (then Deputy Leader of the Malta Labour Party) to find a way out of the impasse that the country was going through (in the 1996-98 legislature).” It has to be pointed out that Dr Muscat explicitly referred to the situation in the 1980s.
He pointed out that Prof. de Marco had the courage to meet with high ranking officials from the Labour Party (then in government) and even with the then President of the Republic, to find a way out of the impasse.
He added that it is shameful that some people took exception to such efforts to bring the country together.
————
Gosh, that was a Freudian slip of mammoth proportions. Sometimes I wonder whether these people actually have the intelligence to work out what they want to say and how to say it.
De Marco kellu l-gatz jiltaqa’ ma’ ufficjali tal-Partit Laburista: why did he need courage to do so, Kurt? Come on, tell us on Twitter.
And as for the heading to the letter – JOSEPH MUSCAT ON GUIDO DE MARCO – oh, please. It brings the most horrid and tasteless images to mind. Surely the poison dwarf could have worked that one out.
48 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“Kellu il gazz”….. because everybody knew, in those horrible days that you really did not know whether you will be going out alive after meeting those thugs that were governing Malta.
So they first split the country using the divide and rule approach, where Labour supporters were pitted against their Nationalist brethren so as to avoid that they ever turn on their government.
Then, they award Guido De Marco, only after his death, with the medal for bravery.
The letter never states that Joseph Muscat requested the correction.
“had the courage” as in he did not mind being seen cooperating with the “other side”.
come on Daphne.
Nonetheless, it’s true that Mr. Kurt Farrugia is simply not fit for his job.
[Daphne -‘Had the courage’ implies an act of courage – and bravery. It does not mean ‘did not mind’. And yes, like his party, Kurt Farrugia isn’t fit for purpose.]
The 80s should be forgotten. Whether it was dangerous or not in those horrible days, it won’t make much of a difference right now.
I wish both parties and their followers would just focus on current matters instead of referring to acts of courage in the 80s and fighting over old stories.
If the two parties want to find a way out of the impasse the country is currently in, they need to stop all the whining and pointing of fingers, accusing one another of being thieves and liars.
This goes especially for Mr. Muscat and their beloved television stations and newspapers.
Your ending comment ruined what could have been an otherwise objective and constructive argument. Pity!
It’s perfectly objective to remember the (70s and) 80s.
Why? Was it because I offended your political beliefs? As I stated in some of my previous comments, I am not politically biased so what I say comes from an out-of-the-box perspective and yes, I think that the PL does point fingers way too much for anyone’s liking.
If I am correct, it’s the opposition’s prerogative to oppose the government.
Ok granted, but sometimes I sense that they mock the other party way too much. Very good examples of such behavior are the few clowns that comment on this blog and other news websites with very silly invented nicknames, insulting firstly the publisher of this blog and secondly the party.
A discussion is best carried out between two real people instead of alter egos.
It is very difficult for many people to forget what has happened to them and to the country in the 70s and 80s. Most of the commentators here post their comments using a nom de plume. This is not a coincidence.
They/we have very valid reasons to do so.
It is the fear of retaliation out of criticising Labour that makes people use a nick. We are very real people who prefer to use alter egos than exposing ourselves to retaliation in the event that some nutters bent on revenge come to have their day (just read some other blogs to have a taste).
Besides, many senior people under whose watch in the 70s and 80s a lot of political violence was perpetrated/condoned/tolerated, are still at the helm of the MLP/PL.
How can people of an opposing political hue (or who simply to not agree with/support Labour) be then asked to forget the past when it might be around the corner waiting for a comeback? Is there anyone who can guarantee to anyone that the past will not be revisited?
It could perhaps be forgiven if they had the decency to at least acknowldege and genuinely apologise for the hell they put the country through and not make excuses for it!
You are right. However, they are trying hard to rewrite history. They will be unsuccessful as long as those of us who lived through those terrible times keep on saying and writing how things really were.
It is impossible to forget the 1980s because Joseph Muscat, in his lust for power at all costs, has committed the ultimate sin: roping in the old guard within his so-called progressive and moderate party.
The very people who remained blatantly silent or overtly condoned the shameful Labour acts are back within his party. What was he thinking? Not only did he accept them back but he actually went out of his way to enamour them.
The scum is back in his party.
Luke, forget? Never. It does make a difference since, as they say, history repeats itself.
And what impasse is the country living right now?
We have a democratically elected government, with a majority of votes and seats. So I do not see any “blind alley” “or “a position from which there is no escape” : that’s the meaning of impasse.
Contrary to the 80s.
On the contrary – the 80s should never be forgotten.
The moment we forget that period, we run the risk of passing through something similar again.
Pray tell us – what ‘impasse’ is the country in at the moment?
Luke, if you did not sound so young and naive, I would have labelled you a holocaust denier.
I envy your youth but not your naivety. At least you admit those were horrible days. They should not be forgotten. Never ever.
The atrocities of the eighties still haunt my generation. We are determined to ward off a repeat , at least in our lifetime.
Luke, had you lived through the eighties, you would know that the country is not currently in an impasse. It has progressed by leaps and bounds in the past twenty years.
It is the PL that is in an impasse because it has been repudiated by all Maltese of good will for the past quarter-century.
I appreciate that you are referring to the parochialism of Maltese politics. Always keep in mind that Malta is the size of a small town.
“The 80s should be forgotten. Whether it was dangerous or not in those horrible days, it won’t make much of a difference right now.”
What you said there is an insult to all those who strove so hard for Malta to be where it is today. It is by not forgetting that we can ensure that history does not repeat itself, Mr. Agius.
Dear Mr Agius – Luke Agius – if you have been following this blog carefully, you would have noticed that the “Spirit of the 80s” is still there in the Labour Party – HATE is the operative word. Have you noticed “LA NITILGHU AHNA NURUK”?
How old are you, Luke?
Did you live during those horrible times?
Even now I am afraid of showing my name because out there, there are still bullies who do not hesitate to harm others because of their political beliefs.
It is wise not to forget, otherwise one can repeat one’s mistakes. U tkun cuc jekk tafdhom.
A word of advice from someone who lived through those days (in terror). Do not be taken in by their smart talk (progressivi, eblema gdid etc). Huwa kas li l-lupu ibiddel sufu imma mhux ghemilu.
Now it’s up to you to form an opinion about one or the other political party. Just look at their leaders.
Try sitting down and listening to them for half an hour. I couldn’t bear more than that, listening to Muscat on television. Then you’ll know. I can assure you, you’ll know the difference.
Current matters include what happened in the days you think are irrelevant, probably because you were born later.
The deputy leaders weren’t born yesterday, for example, nor was the official party leader, even though he behaves like a child. And where do you think Sceberras Trigona, Evarist Bartolo, Joe Debono Grech, et al, came from? They weren’t discovered under a stone this afternoon.
Forget? Never. History has a tendency to repeat itself.
I am in Catania right now, and whereas in the 1980s I would have been regarded as a poor beggar from a quasi-eastern bloc country, desperate for basic necessities like toothpaste and pasta, today we were received as experts in our field with serious discussions on areas of cooperation and investment in Malta.
It’s so different from the days when Sicilian hawkers used to wait down at the dock with boxes of goods, for the Gozo Channel ferry to berth and hordes of deprived Maltese to grab at everything they had to offer.
If nothing else (and that is quite a lot) we have today regained our dignity and self respect.
So please, before you come along to tell us to forget it, just read about those times, obtain information from those who went through it all, and then decide whether to forget it or not.
Once I was in Syracuse and a hawker said to me “Viva Mintoff” I asked him for a reason and he said simply because he made me a rich man.
In their statement Muscat and Farrugia are tryng to neutralize the 1980s regime’s behaviour. Unbelievable.
a bit off topic but can anyone please tell me which language is used here: http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=12191 ?
Thanks
Rumour has it that after they choose their new emblem, they are going to start a new phone-in competition. Choosing the silliest article on Maltastar.com. Calls cost one euro each.
It’s not even manglish, it’s maltish.
Even my 10-year-old can do better.
It is all part of Revisiting Labour’s History.
Am going off at at tangent but was just reading this: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101001/local/global-migration-group-expresses-concern-on-rights-of-international-migrants
I find this bit of news much more ‘interesting’ than the goings on in the glass house. What do you think about this? I feel it is shocking that we, Europeans, should be party to sending fellow humans back to such a country.
He had the courage to meet top officials of the Labour Party because he met them behind the back of Nationalist Party officials and supporters (including front line party activists) who saw him as their inspiration.
Had they known at that time of his activities they would have felt discouraged and his image would have suffered.
In fact, after his behaviour became public many activists changed their opinion about him.
Well said, carlos.
There is so much to say about the 80s – pity is that people who were in the front line in the Labour Party then are there again and there is no sign that things have changed radically.
The Labour Party keeps sending SMSes to individuals urging them to choose emblem ‘B’ – obviously they don’t want to be stuck with one of the ice-cream cones for an enblem.
The choice is in the hands of members – yeah, sure.
How satisfied I was when I heard JPO uttering the word REFERENDUM on Xarabank. He ate humble pie in style while leaving Joseph in a mess.
That was a win-win honourable solution from any side you look at it, except for Dr Joseph who is all out for a divorce law driven down our throat by a simple majority in parliament.
Well done, Jeffrey.
Parliament’s vote on the law will fade into insignificance now that the people will have the final say.
Marlene can vote any way she likes, it won’t be a grave sin because she would not be deciding for us.
[Daphne – A referendum on divorce is anti-democratic insanity.]
Divorce should be a personal choice.
A referendum on divorce is a waste of tax payers’ money.
Daphne, we vote for our representatives in parliament they should reflect what we want when they vote in our name. When they are in difficulty on some issue we are consulted by means of a referendum.
That’s what we call democracy which literally means ‘People power’.
[Daphne – No, John, that’s not democracy. That’s the parliamentary vote which, together with free elections, is just a small part of democracy. Democracy is a wide, overarching concept which incorporates, among other things, the fundamental principle that, in matters of religion and conscience, the majority cannot impose its will on the minority. There are some democratic principles which are much ‘bigger’ than majority rule. One of the great fears of many who think as you do is, ironically, that ‘they’ (Muslims) will eventually outnumber ‘us’ (Christians) and vote in line with their religion. An analysis of the reasons you fear that situation (insight, in other words) should tell you clearly why you stance on a divorce referendum is wrong. Just as it is wrong for Muslims to decide that everyone should live according to Muslim law, so it is wrong for Catholics to decide that everyone should live according to Catholic law.]
Hallik mir-Religjon Daphne!
My point was always that JPO had no right to spearhead a private member’s bill in parliament on a hot issue which was avoided like the plague prior to the last election. It could have been a bill to introduce property tax for that matter.
In Maltese there is an expression ” jurik id-debba u jqabbizlek il-hmara” , that’s what he tried to do.
Regarding”Matters of conscience and religion”: when one takes the same example on the introduction of property tax,are you stating that a voter who owns property should vote in favour of such law or let parliament decide ? If you answer “yes” the property owner would tell you “over my dead body”, Wouldn’t he?
My opinion on divorce is that it solves a problem and creates another two in the process.As a citizen my worries lie on the upbringing of the children, and what happens to the part which never wanted the divorce.
If we are ready to introduce divorce my question would be “Why don’t we do without marriage in the first place and make it a free for all?” We are nearly there after all!
U hallik mil-Muslims u l-Catholics!
John, should we abolish separation and annulments? They effectively create the same problems as divorce. It’s the same package with a different trade name.
As for the wife/husband that do not want divorce, they have no choice in the matter. It takes one half to break a relationship – are you implying that this should be a bilateral decision?
John, a referendum on divorce is anti-democratic. Catholics shouldn’t impose their religion on non-Catholics. If you are a practising Catholic than divorce is not for you. End of argument. Let others live the life they want.
Next we will be advocating religious police – like the muttawwa in some Muslim countries.
There are many Catholics who don’t follow the church’s teaching to the letter, but they are the ones who are answerable to their conscience.
All the Catholic Church can do is to, first of all, lead by example in all spheres of life and educate its members to be faithful in their belief.
‘Marlene can vote any way she likes, it won’t be a grave sin because she would not be deciding for us.’
If I am not mistaken referendums in Malta are not binding. Thus, divorce would still require a parliament vote (and debate) to become law.
As far as I know Maltese law allows for abrogative referenda which are binding, meaning that a law can be repealed by means of a referendum but not proposed for enactment by such a means. Certain criteria apply, of course, e.g. for one fiscal laws can’t be repealed for obvious reasons – we’d all repeal all taxation. Clearly, if a divorce law is enacted, or even drafted and then made subject to a referendum it won’t stand a chance. I stand to be corrected.
Referenda are not binding to the Labour Party. They require a subsequent election and much blustering before they realise, with hindsight, what the result actually was.
Referendum is a Latin word. The prural is referenda.
[Daphne – Well, actually it is now an English word and the more commonly accepted plural is referendums, like forums. There is not such thing as a ‘Latin plural’ anyway, because nouns are declined in Latin so the plural changes according to the position of the noun in the sentence, which is why I found Latin so very difficult to learn.]
Plural of referendum, referenda , forum fora and stadium stadia.These plurals give more class to the writer.
That’s what I was thought at school.
The “new” emblem gimmick was intended to try to stress the fact that they have now changed – nothing of the sort – just follow Maltastar and you know EXACTLY where you stand.
If you swallow the bait then enjoy the consequences.
I think the debate should be on how we are going to persuade the very cool people who for some unknown reason grumble against the present government. The debate should start by asking them what is eating them and then taking it from there. If not, we will end up having this country run by the Maltastar clowns because nobody has bothered.
Why all these advertisements to visit maltastar.com? That is what they want – more hits.
[Daphne – I don’t mind directing traffic to Maltastar. The more people see that rubbish, the better. And despite my best efforts they’re still around 45 places behind this site in the rankings anyway. There’s only so much I can do.]
Malta does not adequately examine, discuss nor evaluate the turbulent political period of the 70s and 80s from a historical standpoint.
Most Maltese academics lack the ‘gatz’ to do so because the moment they do this MLP will break out in hives. As is inevitable, for they have little to be proud about during this period.
You bet Dr de Marco needed ‘gatz’, not to mention thugs to protect him from Mintoff’s rabble rousers! Fight fire with fire I guess.