Why let the facts get in the way?
Health minister and former consultant psychiatrist, Joseph Cassar
This was my column in The Malta Independent on Sunday, yesterday.
I suppose it was inevitable that the Labour Party and its Super One propaganda machine would make a meal of the fact that Joe Cassar, the health minister, was a witness in the prosecution of Charles Pulis, the pederast who made the news.
The Labour Party is thick with lawyers. Why, even the architect and planning expert Robert Musumeci is now reading law so as not to feel left out among his new friends.
Super One itself appears to be a passing-out parade of law students of varying degrees of competence. So it is impossible that they do not know what the situation is, unless they are as incompetent in law as they are at news-gathering.
But why let the facts get in the way of that excellent sport, manipulating the proletariat into such a fever of indignation that they polish up their pitch-forks and prepare to vote Anglu Farrugia in as minister of the interior and Jose A. Herrera as minister of justice, while the spectacularly intelligent Joseph Muscat gets to be the fairy on top of this Christmas tree of a cabinet laden with junk?
Joe Cassar is a psychiatrist. I would say that his profession is much required in politics at present were he but allowed to practise it. Everywhere I look as a political commentator, I see what appear to be lunatics or immensely odd people much in need of a couple of lengthy sessions of talk therapy, though I would much prefer it if they didn’t talk to me and instead found another magnet for their obsessive behaviour.
Before he became a parliamentary secretary in 2008 and then minister of health, Cassar was a consultant psychiatrist. He saw patients at the state mental hospital and also in private health care. Psychiatrists by definition do not deal with normal people but with disturbed individuals. Many of them, like Charles Pulis, end up in court either as victims or as perpetrators.
Because he has a cabinet post, Cassar is no longer permitted to see patients and does not work privately or in the state mental hospital. He is now nobody’s psychiatrist, and certainly not Charles Pulis’s, and hasn’t been for some years. All his patients have long since been referred on to his former colleagues.
But this does not mean that he is no longer summoned to testify in court in police action and even civil cases about patients he saw before 2008. He is obliged at law to present himself in court to testify, regardless of the fact that he is now a cabinet minister. He cannot send a message to the magistrate or judge and say: “I shall disregard orders and not come to court to speak because I am now a minister of the state.”
When I spoke to him about it yesterday, he told me: “I have testified and given evidence as a factual witness and as an expert witness in literally hundreds of court cases. There are fewer now, because I no longer see patients and that means the number of cases pertaining to my one-time patients are tapering off, but I am still summoned, and I have to go.”
Cassar explained that he is no longer asked to be an expert witness because that would constitute private work as a psychiatrist, which is not allowed him as a cabinet minister. He continues to be summoned to court as a factual witness only, to describe the facts about former patients where the law requires him to do so.
“In the case against Charles Pulis, I was a factual witness and not an expert witness. I was not there as Pulis’s psychiatrist but as his former psychiatrist,” Cassar told me. “When one of the lawyers asked me whether I thought he did what he did or whether I thought he was capable of doing it, or something to that effect, my reply was straightforward: that I was not there as an expert witness, and so could not and should not volunteer any such opinions. I was there to state the facts as I knew them.”
Joe Cassar was not even a member of parliament when he took on Charles Pulis as a psychiatric patient, let alone a cabinet minister.
Sandro Chetcuti with Dom Mintoff and four-legged friend
MUSCAT’S SKIP GETS BIGGER
On Friday night, Sandro Chetcuti – adviser to the Labour Business Forum and the man who set up ‘meet the future prime minister’ suppers before he scuppered that by attacking Vince Farrugia in his office – threw a birthday party at the Garden of Eden wedding-hall.
The guests of honour included the future prime minister Joseph Muscat, the man who told the nation how much he is looking forward to divorcing his wife in October, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, and brothers Joe and Godfrey Grima, about whom the least said the better, not least because both of these pensioners are extremely touchy and have a tendency to react with disproportionate hysteria.
There were 200 other ‘anything goes’ guests who don’t seem to have bothered who their host was as long as they had the chance of free food and drinks, so starved are they for entertainment. But let’s not go into that. If Noel Arrigo were to throw a ‘free from Mount Carmel at last’ party, half of society would turn up to it, so this is clearly not a chav phenomenon but another aspect of the peculiarly utilitarian Maltese mindset, and yet another thing which makes me feel like a stranger in my land.
I had met Sandro Chetcuti a couple of times before the attack on Vince Farrugia which led to his arraignment on GBH and attempted murder charges, and he used this cursory acquaintanceship to try to approach me on at least three occasions while I was sitting or walking with others in Valletta’s Queen’s Square.
On the first two occasions, I cut him dead and he persistently addressed himself instead to those who were with me, ignoring their refusal to make eye contact, their obvious discomfiture and their monosyllabic replies. His skin is astonishingly thick.
On the third occasion, when he accosted me as I walked and said he wanted to speak to me about this and that, I thought it best to spell out something that was clearly not obvious to him given that others far, far more important than a mere newspaper columnist were ready to give him the time of day, have coffee with him at Cordina’s and go to his parties.
Just about managing to contain my irritation, I told him that I do not wish to be seen speaking to him in public, that I do not wish to speak to him in private, and that he embarrassed and compromised me by persistently approaching me in public places.
“You are facing serious charges of GBH and the attempted murder of a union leader, so I would appreciate it if you were to leave me alone,” I told him. “I have no reason to talk to you as a journalist and no wish to talk to you in a personal capacity.”
To his credit, he was extremely civil about it and said that he understood perfectly, that he had no wish to upset me, and that he would not approach me, for which I thanked him. We left it at that and I have not seen him since.
Let’s leave aside his guests Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Joe Grima, who are write-offs whichever way you look at it. If Pullicino Orlando couldn’t understand why the Vatican did not invite his lover to mass celebrated by the Pope, and made an unseemly scene about it, then he is never going to understand why he should not – as a member of parliament – accept invitations from a man who is currently being prosecuted for attacking a union leader.
But Joseph Muscat, honestly – his skip just keeps getting bigger. He calls on a controversial magistrate at her home at night (with his wife) and wonders why anybody would make a fuss about it. Now he has accepted the hospitality, and helped celebrate the birthday, of a man charged with GBH and attempted murder of a union leader, while the case is still on-going.
Then he has the utter and absolute nerve to call for other people’s resignations, left, right and centre. He can hitch a private lift on Gaddafi’s private jet, visit at their home at night magistrates under investigation by the Commission for the Administration of Justice, celebrate the virtues of erratic politicians who perpetrate homophobic attacks on their former lovers (and face prosecution for it), and go to parties hosted by people on trial for attempted murder and GBH.
But the prime minister’s chief of staff is not allowed to ring the police commissioner.
I don’t know what’s the more worrying: the fact that Joseph Muscat does these things or the fact that he doesn’t appear to know why he shouldn’t do them.
16 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Even more worrying is the fact that voters are insensible to the impropriety of it all.
Do we hope that the embassies’ staffs here read your column, or do we hope that they don’t? It’s one thing to be taken seriously by the brain dead but can you see Hillary Clinton or William Hague doing it? Gawd help us.
The attack on Joseph Cassar is clearly inspired by pure malice: Labour is not even going to make any electoral or political gains by it. Those who, like me, intended to vote for Cassar will not be the least influenced by One’s evil mud-slinging.
Mr. Chetcuti’s efforts to organise dinners for Joseph Muscat were likely to fail on many counts, including his public image while he is charged with GBH, the expense at restaurants, and the embarassment of making some wrong numbers (something to which Mr. Chetcuti seems to be prone) during the organisation of the meetings.
So could it be that instead, they have changed strategy? Could it be that they are now organising mass parties with the future Prime Minister?
I am very curious as to how the all-powerful floating voters view all this?
Do they report this stuff in the Maltese language papers and other media?
The ginger magician is the very walking embodiment of hubris.
If he gets in, then last one to leave turn the lights out.
How could the Muscats, known to have a fetish for teddy-bears, not accept an invitation for a party with a bear?
Dear Daphne,
With reference to your comments regarding Sandro’s birthday party, I note with sadness your stereotyping of all invitees as a pool of starved people for entertainment. This is very unpolite and certainly unethical. I was one of those distinguished guests and according to my own humble judgement, no one seemed to suffer from any of the aforementioned defined ‘cordial’ attributes. For the record, it is also pertinent to point out that this was a surprise birthday party triggered by Sandro’s beloved wife whom for all intents and purposes did whatever in her capabilities to organise such a successful event. In your articles, I notice your tendancy to attack people personally without due care and diligence.
[Daphne – Dear distinguished guest who is not starved of entertainment, you appear to feel honoured to have been invited to celebrate the birthday of a man currently being prosecuted for attempted murder and GBH on a union leader with whom he had a disagreement. I would have been insulted. But there you go. Each to his own and never mind the difference. I don’t give a monkey’s whether you went and why. You are not the leader of the Opposition or an MP – I hope.]
I have made some enemies here.
Thankfully, they are all people that, were they to think highly of me, I would be very worried.
@Roderick Cutajar
And as the Maltese saying goes, “Ma’ min rajtek, xebbahtek” So sorry, Rod…and oh my, at the Garden of what? Come on, are you serious?
Surprise party? LOL
Roderick, why are you “distinguished”?
I am not at all surprised that our future PPM (Pigmy Prime Minister) regularly consorts with thugs, thieves, liars and cheats. It appears to be his natural habitat. One in which he is truly comfortable.
… Joseph Muscat, honestly – his skip just keeps getting bigger. He calls on a controversial magistrate at her home at night (with his wife) and wonders why anybody would make a fuss about it.
No wonder why Malta, a country so small in nearly all things, has so often had such small Labour Party leaders.
Joseph Muscat is perhaps the smallest of them all.
This man, with his mediocre intelligence, abysmal ignorance, confused communications skills, and constant yielding to the temptation of nonsense, has presented himself to Malta in the grotesque pose of Jesus Christ (”Jiena inhobbkom – Ejja nhobbu lil xulxin”) who has inherited the Labour Party and mistaken it for a Church.
We don’t know what he really thinks. We don’t even know if he does think. We don’t know whether he might not just be a robot badly programmed by Dr Alfred Sant, which constantly confuses and switches around the messages it carries inside it.
But to give the ginger politician some credit for once in his life, there is one program that works to perfection: the fact that he doesn’t appear to know why he shouldn’t do stupid things.
He does not know he’s doing stupid things, and will carry on doing them even when he has the most objective reality and truth right there before his eyes – and, believe me, he will keep on doing stupid things even after he’s elected prime minister.
With the ginger politician, the stupid things come from very deep down; they are in his blood. An idiot emeritus, he is the high priest of all the other Labour Party idiots who have surrounded him, applauded him, and served him over the past few years.
Maltese history will hold the Labourites who, one day, will elect him to account.
@Roderick Cutajar
Your friend Sandro Chetcuti is accused of murder and is on trial. Witnesses saw him beating Farrugia when they responded to his cries for help and burst into his office.
And you do not see anything wrong with the leader of the Opposition helping him celebrate his birthday and accepting his invitations?
Any sensible person wouldn’t even want to be seen with him, let alone the leader of the Opposition.
Do you think Joseph Muscat would have attended this party if the victim was Toni Zarb?
Sandro is very lucky not to be held on remand. The only reason he could have a party is because he’s out on bail – and has the very poor taste to throw a party while in that situation.
Mr. Cutajar, don’t you want to associate with people who are better than you? You are young enough to change your attitude.
Hello Matt!
Thank you for your feedback.
To my understanding, I did not state my opinion on whether I approve or not the attendance of certain people at such events.
I was simply replying to Daphne’s comments re the ‘starved’ for entertainment guests as my wife and I were amongst the invitees. Didn’t sound fair to put everyone in the same basket.
Will not go into the remit of the case between SC and VF, nonetheless I am of the understanding that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Re associating myself with better people, thankfully, I was brought up with inner traits and values that allow me to relate and interact with everyone. On a different note, I disassociate myself from those people whom due to their nature and character have the tendency to look down at others.
I am all for constructive disagreement and open dialogue. Re the ‘young enough’, I am not that young.
Regards,
Roderick
[Daphne – Looking down on others has nothing to do with it, Roderick. This is not a class issue but a crime and behaviour issue. Nor has ‘innocent until proven guilty’ have anything to do with it. The fact remains that your host actually did knock down a union leader (and elderly man) in his office and beat him. He was caught in the act by the union leader’s colleagues who burst in and had to pull your host off him. Let me posit a different scenario: had your host been caught savagely beating a woman in that way, would you have gone to his party? Or is it OK because it was Vince Farrugia?
I find it interesting that you and your wife seem to be more offended at the idea that I think of you as desperate for a party to go to than at the accusation that you must be of dubious integrity to have gone. Being invited to parties is apparently the new chav definition of success, and yet another reason I feel compelled to stay away.]
Roderick, you state: “I was brought up with inner traits and values that allow me to relate and interact with everyone.”
That’s fine, but there are boundaries. It is one thing talking to someone known to have used violence against another person; it is something completely different celebrating at his party.
Had I received an invitation to the party, I would have felt offended.
Daphne is absolutely right in criticising those who attended the party, including the Leader of the Opposition.
Even if the “distinguished guests” will deny it, by attending they have implicity condoned the violent actions.