The beam in Muscat's eye
There is a reason why Joseph Muscat is trying to drown out all other noise by demanding Edgar Galea Curmi’s resignation because, he says, it is unacceptable for the prime minister’s chief of staff to ring the police commissioner.
It’s because he wants us to forget that the leader of the Opposition and chief of the Labour Party paid a highly unacceptable visit to the home of Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera at 10pm on Thursday last week.
Joseph Muscat should explain what he was doing there, or resign. It might have to be both.
When Magistrate Herrera said under oath in court (falsely) that she had lunch with Assistant Commissioner Michael Cassar, who was then head of the Vice Squad, he took the matter so seriously that he gave a public statement to the press formally denying it, and immediately hand-delivered a letter to the Chief Justice to put on record the fact that he had not done any such thing.
This is not because it is disgraceful to eat with Consuelo Herrera, but because Asst Comm Cassar knows that a police officer, still less a high-ranking one, may not have private social engagements with a member of the judiciary, because of the separation of powers.
For precisely the same reason, the leader of the Opposition may not visit, or be visited by, a member of the judiciary in a private capacity.
22 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Seems you know something that we don’t. Enlighten us please.
[Daphne – Of course I don’t. Any such visit is ALWAYS unacceptable, no matter the purpose or what is discussed. Leaders of the Opposition may not pay private social visits to magistrates or judges in their home, and magistrates and judges may not receive them. The same goes for prime ministers, and a whole list of other people with significant roles in the administration of the country. That’s why assistant police commissioner Michael Cassar took the matter so seriously when Magistrate Herrera claimed under oath (falsely) that he had lunch with her. He made a public statement in the press to deny it and within hours hand-delivered a letter to the Chief Justice denying that he did so. Compare his reaction to Muscat’s reaction of silence. The man doesn’t even realise how out of order his behaviour is. ]
Mr. Muscat must provide an explanation or resign his constitutional position of Leader of the Opposition.
In his constitutional position, he has violated the separation of State and Judiciary in very suspicious circumstances and must have a very good explanation up those sleeves.
Muscat’s culture is peasant utilitarianism: the end justifies the means. His ethics are seriously skewed, and this is becoming ever more obvious.
I understand that ‘Deep Brain Stimulation’ is now available at the hospital. Our little Joey Muscat was the first to try it, I was told. However they couldn’t find it.
Is this not one of those cases where the President – as the guardian of the constitution – calls the leader of the opposition to have a word with him?
[Daphne – Ah, more conflict of interest. The leader of the Opposition made the President of the Republic’s daughter a big cheese in the Labour Party, and his son is coming along rather nicely there too.]
She’s his daughter-in-law, I think.
Ajma rasi.
I had firmly decided to vote Labour in the next election, outraged at the PM’s ‘no’ vote on the divorce bill.
I’m going back to the floating voter list after your latest posts.
Me too.
Up to now it’s ‘none of the above’.
I shall choose a party based on policy (PN wins here) whilst making sure that I try to get a better perspective of individual candidates’ performance, though this still runs a risk of making a Daphne choice come voting for a rising star with a hidden sordid past. Let us hope that candidate vetting is upped a notch .
In order to reduce ‘the risk of making a Daphne choice’, might I suggest the following:
1. Don’t be blinded by a candidate’s gorgeous eyes.
2. Try to suppress your natural mothering instinct.
[Daphne – It’s dark eyes that do it for me, John. I’m a George Clooney girl, not Brad Pitt.]
I was also very disappointed that the PM voted no in the divorce bill. However, there was no time when I thought of not voting for the PN.
Brad Pitt? Oh – you mean that bloke who was staying at Spuddy’s place? No – I don’t fancy him either.
[Daphne – We’re agreed, then. But please don’t tell me that you fancy George Clooney, because after the last couple of weeks of news, that would be just too much.]
I must admit that George isn’t bad looking. Tell you the truth though, I had more of a crush on his aunt Rosemary. Oh for the mammaries.
Whatever. Now for some 90s nostalgia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0SnDaSdc_0
I’m voting PN instead of AD because of the PM’s stance against divorce.
If Joe Muscat goes up the steps of Castille as PM, it will most certainly NOT be thanks to my vote!
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/pn-accuses-muscat-of-%E2%80%98painting-himself-into-tight-corner%E2%80%99
““Just when everyone thought that long gone were the days when the dividing line between politics and the judiciary was simply non existent, he (Muscat) insists that a Labour Party representative sits in the independent inquiry to investigate the actions of the Police in cases which involve a Labour Party candidate,” the PN said.”
Maybe he was discussing the Cyrus case.
So after all, Cyrus has not even given the real reason why he left the PN. It definitely was not the divorce vote.
Could Cyrus have been coerced into defecting from the PN, given what they had on him? To join labour and promised protection maybe, from Marvic’s lawyers? But double-crossed and exposed instead, to have the whole affair blamed on PN vindictiveness?
They were never interested in having a smart, gay Slimiz on their team anyway. So WTF? Throw him to the dogs.
A long shot, but I believe you’ve hit the bull.
Lomax….Fat chance with the “poodle press” we have here.
Does anybody out there really think that ‘vetting’ candidates would work? Most of the LP candidates already have a past that would ordinarily disqualify them (in a real democracy).
And it seems we have quite a few nasty Nats too. In any case, those with a dodgy record would all lie through their teeth – as long as they get elected. So that’s not going to work.
For me, track record swings it . . . by several country miles.
Apart from the violence, criminality and constitutional aberrations, the sheer fact is that Labour’s last sustained period in office left the country with a third-world infrastructure, no Uni (boy, do I know that) and practically no job prospects bar the “Korpi” (blue-eyed boys excepted).
This is not to say that Labour does not have the odd nugget – in my long years with the Deaf Association, I was impressed by the commitment and interest of several Labour MPs/ministers/spokespersons. I genuinely hope that this side of the party grows and develops.