Il-Partit Liberali ta’ Joseph
When you have 15 minutes, this is worth watching right through to the end for the scenes of North Korean dancers performing to the tune (sung by North Koreans in North Korea) of ‘Ma taghmlu xejn mal-Perit Mintoff’.
And for the glimpse of a propaganda notice in socialist red: IL-COMPUTER – TAGHTIH IL-KAKKA U JAGHTIK IL-KAKKA LURA.
Oh yes, and for the crowds of his Hugo Chavez-type supporters chanting ‘Mintoff jerga jkun fil-gvern! Hallelujah!’
The tragedy of our situation right now is that we’re caught between a bunch of people who can’t understand the three-letter word YES and who still think that a referendum is as nothing compared to the might and glory of a tanga-salesman’s conscience, and another bunch of people who think they’re the liberal lot when their feet are standing in this kind of muck.
51 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
If you have to go so far back in the past for some solace, you must be really desperate.
And twisted, manipulated solace, at that.
[Daphne – Solace for what, Chavs? As I pointed out, it’s the opposite of solace. It may be ‘so far back’ to you, but to me, it isn’t. I was already a sentient human being when all those things were happening, so I can see the continuous ‘development’ of the Labour Party into what it is now, and what’s more, even with the same people on board. For you, Labour might have been born in 1996. For me, it was born in 1971. You are foolish indeed if you think that it is possible for a behemoth political party to make a complete break with the past and reinvent itself in the 24 years since 1987. It’s impossible.]
“il computer – taghtih il-kakka u jaghtik l-kakka lura”.
Mintoff was enough of a visionary to coin the Maltese equivalent of garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) which is in today’s computer studies syllabus.
Visionary? Yeah right! One could also say that a certain gentleman born in China in 1893 and another born in Georgia in 1878 could be described as ‘visionaries’ as well.
Whatever the point of your farcical statement may be, I suppose we should all be thankful that none of their so-called visions came to fruition.
Another half truth propaganda video. Marie Brigulio’s opinion is based on what was written about him, a few dared to write something bad about him and ended up facing his flak from everywhere.
“Pike’s” definition of Dom “A good car without brakes”.
My definition of him: “When he’s on your side he’s good and when he’s against you he’s terrible”.
Joseph is nowhere near him not even at present when we’ve seen Dom driven on a wheel chair being taken to vote in the referendum.
L-anqas sulfarina quddiem ritratt tal-passaport ta’ Joseph ma’ jixghelu l-partitarji, hawn min kif jarah fuq it-TV, jaqliblu.
“TAGHTIH IL-KAKKA U JAGHTIK IL-KAKKA LURA”
Google doesn’t manage to translate for me :(
Shit in, shit out?
[Daphne – Exactly.]
It used to be my post production teacher’s favourite saying, although most likely in a different context to what the sign makers had in mind.
It’s actually a great rule of thumb to keep in mind when creating anything digital, so in a way they are pretty much spot on, although without knowing it.
Good timing – the same predicament of the Seventies is around the corner should the Nationalists lose the forthcoming elections.
Labour will not change. Many might have forgotten or perhaps don’t even know what Malta can be like under the socialists.
Joseph is much less intelligent, but then the electoral base did not change much and in a Labour led scenario Malta’s fate might be even worse.
Labour will not change.
You have just been proved right. Marie Louise Coleiro Preca will not be contesting the next general election. So we have a confirmation of where the threats she spoke about yesterday were coming from.
This is the typical behaviour of the socialist thugs. They are very intolerant and violent.
They have been in hibernation ever since Labour has been in opposition. When Alfred Sant took over he gradually purged most old Labour candidates renowned for their violent behaviour and this appeared to signal a return to sanity.
But the lost sheep have returned to the fold and it seems Joseph has inadvertenly invited a revival of the old Labour thuggery.
Talking about Labour and their violent tactics….read Evarist Bartolo’s incitement to rebellion at the end of this report. Labour is trying it all using any means to destabilize-
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110603/local/austin-gatt-says-he-will-vote-against-divorce-in-parliament-many-mps-still-undecided.368620
I voted No. I decided to do that when the mess that started out as some political expedient for a politician on a steep decline snowballed as it kept gathering dirt.
The idiotic referendum question, the Labour protest vote, the insults, the realization for the umpteenth time that I form part of a nation whose collective thought process barely equals that of am infant, though its self-image is anything but – those were all reasons for my vote.
Before all this I was going to vote Yes. I am fully of the opinion that it comes at a social cost. But so do other things that we have long accepted. The discussion should have focused on how we can plan for these costs. But there you have it: the equivalent of a planning permit issued before an EIA.
However, here we are discussing social morals and not religious ones. So the conscience formed on religious beliefs – as opposed to a social conscience – should not come into it at this stage.
I am a practising Catholic and church-goer and fully accept the fact that there can be no divorce for religious marriages. Full stop. The state however may decide otherwise for the type of marriages it recognizes and administers.
If the politicians felt so strongly about the issue they should not have let it come to this stage. If the PM did not want to compromise his principles he should have acted differently at the outset.
If I believe so strongly in something I would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. As things have turned out now it is too late to act otherwise. Their focus now should be the proper – not unduly rushed – legislation.
“I am a practising Catholic and church-goer and fully accept the fact that there can be no divorce for religious marriages. Full stop.”
“The state however may decide otherwise for the type of marriages it recognizes and administers.”
This referendum was about civil marriages, not religious one.
So in a supposedly non-religious-secular-based referendum, you voted No.
Tal-wahx.
[Daphne – ‘There can be no divorce for religious marriages.’ Of course there can. People who marry in church can get divorced. And because divorce legislation comes after the church-state agreement on Catholic marriages and state annulments, one spouse can’t stop the other from initiating the divorce process.]
To emphasise, those were her words, not mine.
Alan, I gave my reasons why. None of them based on religion. Tal-wahx how many people don’t read properly.
Daphne. The civil part of the marriage would be ‘divorced’. Remarriage then only possible civilly. I would have thought that was clear enough by now.
[Daphne – The state recognises only the civil part. Religious marriages exist only in people’s heads. If they’re fine with that, then so am I. But to be honest, I would have problems with the mental state of somebody who keeps insisting they’re still married to Tom when Tom has been married to Mary for the last 30 years. I trust that in a situation like that, people who think that way have the good sense to keep their thoughts to themselves, lest others think they are nuts.]
And yes, Alan. That is what inverted commas normally indicate.
Still doesn’t change the fact that your thinking is a tad warped.
This borders on intolerance. Since when can’t you talk about your beliefs as long as you don’t try to impose them and you’re not at a dinner party?
Nevertheless this doesn’t detract from my main argument, which was, after all, in agreement with the fact that the referendum result should hold and MPs cannot any more vote against in parliament on the basis that they are against divorce.
But if my reasoning is that warped (rich, judging by what gets posted here) then I’ll take your word for it.
[Maryanne (2?) – This borders on intolerance. Since when can’t you talk about your beliefs as long as you don’t try to impose them and you’re not at a dinner party?]
No intolerance at all. You have every right to express your opinions. Others have every right to express their opinion that your opinions are warped.
[Maryanne (2?) – But if my reasoning is that warped (rich, judging by what gets posted here) then I’ll take your word for it].
So you’re calling others’ comments warped? Shall we say that’s intolerant of you? Of course not. I hope you get my point.
Maryanne:
Who has claimed you can’t talk about your beliefs? You can talk all you want about them, just as we can criticise them to kingdom come.
In a nutshell: If you truly believed in a secular state, you should have voted Yes. Not for you, but for others. Your words simply contradict themselves.
Simple as that.
I stand by saying that your reasoning is, unfortunately, warped.
And this makes it worse:
“The idiotic referendum question, the Labour protest vote, the insults, the realization for the umpteenth time that I form part of a nation whose collective thought process barely equals that of am infant, though its self-image is anything but – those were all reasons for my vote.”
So you voted No for ALL the wrong reasons.
And you speak of intolerance.
Humbug.
Alan, many people voted YES for the wrong reasons and I don’t see you protesting. In this case, you have decided that my considerations were invalid. I question your credentials to judge. To the rest of you, the remark on intolerance was directed at the administrator who actually used the word ‘nuts’ in relation to people who expressed their beliefs in public.
[Daphne – I am the administrator and I did not use the word ‘nuts’ in relation to people who express their beliefs in public. Given that I make a living out of expressing my beliefs in public, that would make me nuts too.]
[Daphne – The state recognises only the civil part. Religious marriages exist only in people’s heads. If they’re fine with that, then so am I. But to be honest, I would have problems with the mental state of somebody who keeps insisting they’re still married to Tom when Tom has been married to Mary for the last 30 years. I trust that in a situation like that, people who think that way have the good sense to keep their thoughts to themselves, lest others think they are nuts.]
[Daphne – Exactly. I did not say that ‘people who express their beliefs in public are nuts’. I was very specific as which beliefs, when expressed in public, may lead to people thinking that a person is nuts. There are several such beliefs. I am quite sure you can list a few. A woman (or man) who spends 30 years insisting that she (he) is still married to somebody who divorced them in the 1970s may not be thought nuts, but certainly very, very ‘sad’. Sometimes, you have to know when it is not appropriate to voice your beliefs because it will lead to reflections on, if not your sanity, then your sense of judgement. Hence, Tonio Fenech and the crying Madonna. He is free to believe that. But he should have known that expressing it would expose him to ridicule. The frightening thing is that I now realise he thought everyojne in Malta assesses as per normal whether or not the Madonna weeps at their actions. He genuinely did not realise that this is a minority view generally confined to elderly people of insufficient education and those who never grew out of the St Aloysius schoolboy mindset.]
[Maryanne (2?) – Alan, many people voted YES for the wrong reasons and I don’t see you protesting].
I don’t see any of them here.
[In this case, you have decided that my considerations were invalid. I question your credentials to judge].
Are you saying that only people with “credentials” have the right to express an opinion? Wouldn’t you say that’s “intolerant”?
[Maryanne (2?) – To the rest of you, the remark on intolerance was directed at the administrator who actually used the word ‘nuts’ in relation to people who expressed their beliefs in public].
She didn’t. As she herself pointed out, if she had said so, that would imply she thinks she’s nuts herself because she also expresses her beliefs in public. So does everyone else here.
Re-read what she wrote again, and perhaps you’ll understand.
Seems arguing with you or making you see the flaw in your logic, is absolutely pointless. I rest my case.
Alan, ditto.
Kenneth, I don’t think I’m the one not understanding what I’m reading.
Oh well, I shouldn’t have revisited this site… what a waste of time. My fault for letting curiosity get the better of me.. but it seems to be just another site for people who only like to hear from others who share their exact same point of view. Pointless. Here’s one to strike off the bookmarked pages.
Daphne, thank you for running this site. And for posting never-seen-before images like the above.
Actually, a tanga can be useful in keeping one’s conscience clean: one can either wrap up one’s conscience in it, or just use it for an occasional wipe.
These were very very different times. Politicians were akin to gods. They held the key to a person’s advancement or destitution. Some abused of their position. Mintoff’s politics were a fresh take on a decrepit status dominated primarily by the Church and its minions. Whatever may or may not be said about Mintoff he did take steps to bring Malta out of the dark ages. Unfortunately – like all politicians who have outstayed their welcome – he too or rather he ‘allowed’ others to abuse of their position. Today’s story is vastly different. Today you have the population ignoring the fire and brimstone coming from church quarters. Today people defy or take on ministers without batting an eyelid. Ministers are subject to more scrutiny and critisism. At the end of the day hindsight is always 20/20.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110602/local/marie-louise-coleiro-preca-says-she-will-not-be-election-candidate.368526
Now THAT is the way to do things.
I have always said that Marie Louise Coleiro Preca is a woman of integrity, and one of the few members of the Labour Party who I truly admire.
Sad as I am to see her go, she did the right thing, and I agree that she cannot remain in politics due to the clash between her beliefs and the will of the majority.
Lawrence Gonzi, Beppe Fenech Adami, and all the rest of those sorry excuses for MPs, take the hint.
Change or leave. Your political days are fast vanishing.
And this one should follow in Marie Louise Coleiro Preca’s footsteps.
But I doubt he and others like him from both sides have the b*lls to do it.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110602/local/labour-mp-adamant-on-voting-against-divorce-bill.368484
At this rate, it will soon be only relevant whether Mr. Speaker will back the bill.
I’m afraid Labour is beginning to show better leadership than the PN but the MPs, on both sides, should never have been given a free vote.
If the reason was truly the “clash between her beliefs and the will of the majority”, she would resign immediately, and not wait until the next general elections.
that video evoked some terrible memories….horrible
I first voted in June1971, which ushered in the 16-year stranglehold of the MLP. I have vague memories of the Integration referendum – not understanding what was going on – and being sent home in mid-morning from St Aloysius College during the April 1958 riots.
I worked in the financial services sector and clearly remember the Bical and National Bank of Malta sagas and being suspended, with several other employees, for several weeks in the summer of 1977 for taking sympathy industrial action with Telemalta (GO’s ancestor) employees.
So this clip brought some shivers down my spine with its chanting and excerpts from speeches, but the cherry on the cake was catching several glimpses of Denis Sammut who was executive director – more political commisar and hitman – at BOV from 1982 to 1987.
[Daphne – Please somebody tell me this is not the same Dennis Sammut, who disappeared from Malta shortly after 1987. If so, then he is truly the master of reinvention, from criminal thug to NATO: http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=1615
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=dennis+sammut&view=detail&id=B3DBED500FA5F3961A19538627F985F9334AB1DA&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR ]
My son, who was three years old in 1987 and voted for the first time in the 2003 EU referendum and general election which followed, finds difficulty in relating to these politicians and events which for him could date back to the “Middle Ages” .
A serious omission is the lack of Maltese history teaching in local schools which generally tapers off at the Sette Giugno riots; the truth is out there but it seems that our schools are not yet prepared or willing to impart to their students what happened locally from 1020 onwards.
But thanks for this clip which brought back bad memories and could be a harbinger for the near future. A perfect depressing accompaniment to a gloomy morning.
Oops :1020 should have been 1920 !
Daphne, do you recognise the voice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3zkx-MOdVA
Dennis (or Denis) Sammut is the guy with specs laughing at Mintoff’s “witty” remarks and appears at 1.53, 3.51, 4.51, 5.32,5.45 in the clip; he must have been 30 + when he scrambled to the UK post May 1987,just add 24 years and remove specs.
He was also associated with POPEM (Peace Organisation of the People of Europe and the Mediterranean) a front organisation financed by Gaddafi’s Libya .
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2011/04/04/evarist-saliba-those-who-claim-neutrality-to-suggest-that-we-should-mediate-are-not-neutral-at-all/
Of course it’s Denis Sammut of Bank of Valletta fame.
[Daphne – This is just unbelievable. From criminal thug to NATO.]
Pecksniff.
Your recounting of the terrible events which characterized the totalitarian regime of Mintoff has reminded me of the endless times of oppression, brutal police violence and political victimization.
We probably were colleagues and brothers in arms fighting that interminable onslaught at all levels of the social strata but more specifically in the financial sector.
The Nato Dennis Sammut cannot be the socialist fellow we both knew who probably is around 60 by now. Although there is a slight resemblance, the Nato one would be much younger, perhaps in his late forties.
[Daphne – As somebody in my late 40s I can tell you that the man in the video is not my age but at least 10 years older. I would not be at all surprised if it were the same man. When he left Malta, he went to England and lived in Oxford.]
If no party is democratic then f**k ’em all. As far as I am concerned both of them would be bad news for our country.
Can we ask Britain to take us back? Pretty please!
I have a better idea. Switerzland is landlocked. So are Austria, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary. They’d jump at the idea of a seaport. Let’s sell Malta to the highest bidder.
Baxxter, Switzerland is not a good idea. They hold a referendum once every month over there.
Oh dear. Just HOW do they manage it, with the price of billboards and Xarabanks and all that?
Billboards….now that’s an idea. I think I’ll put one up saying: INVADE US, PLEASE. It’s a damn shame no one’s interested in the old taking-over-the-wog’s-territory any longer.
That’s right, Baxxter. After the death of Bin Laden, not even Al Qaeda would be interested in us.
The French seem to be making an awful lot of stopovers in sunny Malta. No hotel bed nights though – French Mirage pilots don’t need beds to fill ‘er up when the juice runs out.
Now if we could persuade them to stay and raise their flag, we’d have divorce, and PACS, and nude beaches and dancing girls and all the delights which liberal Europe offers. At this rate we’ll be lucky to survive two more years in the EU (especially since structural funds will dry up after 2013…)
I wonder what the Borg in-Nadur oracle thinks of EU membership? Was it right? Was it wrong? Wrong is right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zute2g1S_w
No Daphne, he is not the same Dennis Sammut.
A clone perhaps? Hearing the voice and comparing 80s clip with recent photo/clip points to one and the same person.
If not, who is the “other” Dennis Sammut linked with NATO and ex Soviet Union countries think-tanks?
[Daphne – It’s amazing, isn’t it? Twenty-four years in that environment and he still has that dreadful accent.]
He had lots of friends in the ex-Soviet republics.
Dom Mintoff, a real great Maltese leader.
IL-COMPUTER – TAGHTIH IL-KAKKA U JAGHTIK IL-KAKKA LURA.
What a difference! Malta Today directors please note:
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/…/shireburn-gain-microsoft-silver-partner-status-for -web-development