The skewed logic of Miss Jason's friend, Mrs Scerri
Labour finds itself a new secretary-general, somebody Consuelo Scerri Herrera can really respect
Here’s Mrs Scerri, handing down judgement in a recent libel case, Jason Micallef vs Edgar (known as Eddie) Aquilina: “The plaintiff is segretary-general of a political party, therefore he is a person of integrity”.
Didn’t they teach units in philosophy in the law course back in the 1980s?
Many of her judgements are replete with similar non sequiturs, but this one is especially interesting because she and Jason are friends.
“F’dan il-kaz ma nistghux ninsew li l-attur jokkupa l-kariga ta’ Segretarju Generali ta’ Partit Politiku w ghalhekk, huwa bniedem t’integrita u l-poplu ghandu juri r-rispett lejn il-kariga tieghu.”
– Consuelo Scerri Herrera on Jason Micallef (no, not literally – I don’t think he’s interested)
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The case was presented on 28th September 2007 (ref. 302/2007).
Was Jason Micallef already a friend of “the magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera” or did he befriend her after the case had opened?
Or perhaps they didn’t speak on friendly terms until 16th September 2009 when judgement was delivered?
These are genuine questions.
Feel sorry for that sweet pug.
Good pic of Muscat without his ‘beard’ trying on one of Alfred’s wigs.
On what basis is a general secretary of any poltical party considered a priori a person of integrity?
It is not as if the world isn’t replete with examples showing the opposite.
“The plaintiff is segretary-general of a political party, therefore he is a person of integrity”
Therefore, using the same yardstick, Joseph Stalin, who was General Secretary of the Communist Party, was also a person of integrity.
Interesting.
Actually I am beginning to suspect that there is scope for a website dedicated to silly dicta couched in legalese.
It would be beneficial to this country having the judiciary on its toes.
“The plaintiff is segretary-general of a political party, therefore he is a person of integrity”
Following the same reasoning, “I am a magistrate and therefore I am a person of integrity and therefore I shall call in the police if you show I am nothing of the sort.”
Jason is a person of integrity? But then the magistrate who said those words thinks that she, too, is a person of integrity – simply because she is a magistrate.
The word to describe them is ‘vulgar’.
Incredible, a magistrate commiting perjury in the course of sentencing!!!!! (Can’t have enough exclamation marks here)
So, using Consuelo’s own argument, given that Jason Micallef is no longer the Secretary General of a political party, then, we are entitled to question his integrity.
And notice how the magistrate said “l-poplu ghandu juri r-rispett lejn il-kariga tieghu” and not something like “rispett lejh bhala persuna li tokkupa dik il-kariga.”
It is precisely because people respect the post of secretary general of a political party that the people show contempt for the persons who occupy it without deserving to do so.
Look at the comment beneath this article: people found guilty of defaming Jason Micallef should be banned for life from writing political articles. Would they still be permitted to write cookery books, I wonder?
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=4230
Sick….it simply makes me sick to read that being secretary-general to a political party earns one an automatic distinction.
If Magistrate Herrera honestly has such ideas, God forbid that oneshould appear before her for judgement. Pathetic, naive, stupid, partisan, childish and grossly unjust.
There were other people who held positions which should be occupied by people “of integrity”. Lorry Sant, Noel Arrigo and Dom Mintoff are but a few.
Did Consuelo Scerri-Herrera really use the word ‘respect’? Maybe she meant to say that people in a position of some authority should not be criticised? Isn’t that why she believes she should not be criticised?