Warning! Major personal attack up ahead!
Left-click on the image to make it larger
Since talk of ‘personal attacks’ and ‘hate comments’ (meaning jokes about Grace Borg’s interesting nails) seems to be all the rage with Maltese politicians and that part of Maltese society which is cut off from the western world, I thought I’d bring you one of the milder and more recent ‘violent personal attacks and hate comments’ from the bastion of that terrible evil, freedom of speech, where politicians are lampooned and ridiculed for sport.
Here is the cover of the Christmas issue of The Spectator. Angela Merkel is depicted as a wicked murdering peasant with crazed eyes, carrying over her shoulder a chicken trussed up to a stick. The chicken is Nicolas Sarkozy.
And is that starving, freezing peasant in the background the prime minister of the country in which this magazine is published? Yes, it is. David Cameron.
If you’re waiting for the speech in which Cameron condemns personal attacks, or the BBC talk show in which the presenters condemn what was written about, say, Margaret Thatcher, don’t hold your breath.
Hold it even less if you’re waiting for Ed Miliband’s party to condemn people for making jokes and cartoons about one of their more ridiculous candidates and the state of her finger-tips.
There are three sides to Maltese society: the one which was raised in and still inhabits the world in which this sort of thing is not acceptable so much as absolutely essential, and another one which would rather be in France, where the electorate only found out that Mitterand had a daughter born to his mistress when they wondered out loud who the grown woman was standing at his graveside.
Then, of course, there is the largely Mintoffian chunk, which would have people like me arrested and imprisoned without trial, on some vague charge which they are unable to articulate, but which looks suspiciously like the serious offence of speaking your mind about sacred personages, such as Malta’s very own Chairman Mao.
You are free to insult everyone else most horribly, especially if they vote PN. You may even make death threats against such people, if they have the temerity to laugh at the Labour Party and scorn it, which you will describe as Hate.
Enough with this nonsense, from the prime minister down, right down to Anglu Farrugia, talk show hosts, newspaper reporters (how ironic), the lot of you. Get a grip on yourselves.
Malta is part of the free west, not North Africa. Deal with it. A hate comment is not a joke about a Labour candidate’s fingernails. A hate comment would be: “Burn all African immigrants because they are the children of Satan and will poison our wells.”
And a personal attack is not scorn and ridicule heaped on the leader of the Opposition and his wife for their scripted PDAs. A personal attack is a death threat, a promise of violence, or a real act of violence on one’s person or property.
What a country. Honestly.
21 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
here’s another “personal attack”…..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9004332/Ed-Miliband-too-ugly-to-be-prime-minister.html
Another thing about Maltese society is that people blaspheme and swear left, right and centre but if you make a mild joke involving a crucifix they go all sanctimonious.
Reminds me of the fuss about the Mohammed cartoons.
incidentally, The Spectator cartoonist has also “desecrated” a famous painting.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2011/12/9/1323423657711/Pieter-Bruegel-the-Elder–002.jpg
Shall we tell them about Sebastian Horsley?
Saw this tweeted today:
“I keep hearing that freedom of speech doesn’t mean the right to offend people’s sentiments. Actually, that’s EXACTLY what it means.”
Too true D. Not that I particularly like Berlusconi or indeed approve of his behaviour, but hey, look at what he had to go through all these years. And what about that prat George Bush? The trouble with us Maltese is that of course we take ourselves too seriously and so lack a sense humour.
Clearly, Peter Brookes of the Spectator dedicated the bottom left hand corner of his caricature to Malta. He was inspired by Silvio Parnis’s classic words:
“GHAX BIEX IGAWDI TA’ TAHT IRID JAHDEM TA’ FUQ.”
I have to add that it is possible that Brookes was also inspired by Professor Edward Scicluna’s comments that he sides with the underdogs.
Have you ever seen Boris Johnson with tears in his eyes, begging to be left alone? Or Prince Philip?
Daphne, the following link has got nothing to do with the above article however I think you should see it.
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/ACTA_resolution_MT
Some facts before watching this;
Berlusconi had just become notorious for his sexual appetite
Bersani is considered unattractive
Fini was in the middle of a scandal regarding his brother-in-law’s dealings.
Rutelli is the object of ridicule for being useless.
D’Alema is considered a whore, willing to do anything to hold on to power
The pope was under fire for his handling of the child molestation scandal
Gasparri has a minor squint.
Napolitano, the president of the republic, is in his 80’s.
The woman who walks out when the pope is picked upon is Daniela Santanche’, an exponent of the far right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80YdECM3Qio
Can you imagine Bondi+ having a similar slot?
I bet Salman Rushdie would swap his death threat with any personal attack we have witnessed in Malta
al mument hsibtha int dik l emm fuq l cover
Kont naf li Teologu huwa studjuz t’Alla; issa wasalt ghal konkluzjoni li lejburist huwa njorant tal-madunna!
I’ve an example which perfectly illustrates the YAWNING INTERGALACTIC SPACE between Malta and Britain.
When Margaret Thatcher (“Prime Minister Emeritus Baroness Doctorrrr Thatcher” for the Maltese) had a stroke some seven years back, and ended up with a severe speech impediment, Private Eye published a front cover showing the ailing Thatcher, with an empty speech bubble and the title THATCHER SHOCK.
I still treasure that issue.
Then there was the series of hilarious articles on Princess Diana’s death. Or Princess Margaret’s cremation (“One last smoke. It’s what she would have wanted.”). And this is the royal family we’re talking about.
For those of you who think we’re backwards, but slowly moving towards European standards in satire, think again. A quick look at your typical Maltese 1920s satirical cartoon and its 2012 counterpart will soon convince you otherwise.
I love Private Eye. Whenever I’m in London it’s the first thing I buy to have something to read on the tube or before I go to bed.
And yes, the material on it would be grounds for the death penalty by Maltese standards.
So true.
La krejta , ghoqod ghalija, jghid il-Malti.
There’s also a poodle getting humped.
I can’t see how you can compare a political caricature to repeatedly stating without evidence that a public figure is involved in illegal cockfighting, or making immature homophobic slurs about your political opponents.
As for your “piece” about Mintoff, you posted a picture and made up a (spurious) story about what circumstances it might have been taken in, Daily Mail style. It was deliberately offensive, but also crass and artless.
Satirical material like the above is produced within well-defined legal boundaries designed to ensure political freedom of speech while protecting individual rights. What you do is propaganda, harassment and rabble-rousing. Shutting down this blog would not be an affront to freedom and democracy – quite the opposite.
[Daphne – Unbelievable. No, really, incredible. And do you know what’s most shocking about your statement? Not the fact that like your average Laburist you just don’t understand the principles of free expression and are uncomfortable with the concept. The shocking thing is that you fail to realise that the curtailment of the right to freedom of expression, and what followed on from that, including direct attacks on the free press through arson, is one of the worst memories that people my age and older have. So when you talk of closing down blogs, shutting up journalists and the like, you trigger off a Pavlovian response almost as strong as the sight of your emblema tal-partit. You don’t protect the free press by targetting it, my dear. And your understanding of what constitutes satire is extremely weak. I generally find that people who think as you do are humourless – and that is why you think as you do. So a spoof about Grace Borg’s talons becomes a ‘hate comment’ or a ‘personal attack’, while everyone else just cracks up laughing. Your sort would have been a book-burner in another age, or sitting on some Inquisition Tribunal investigating known and notorious witches for magic and spreading false ideas.]
A blasphemy in one language is still a blasphemy if stated in another language. However it also true that maybe due to the Maltese religious culture, there are more blasphemous expressions in Maltese than in English. Expressions in English which may sound religiously offensive to a Maltese person may not sound so blasphemous for an English person. They are still abusive but do not necessarily evoke an antireligious sentiment as they are used or understood in a metaphorical sense.
Regarding personal attacks, in logic “ad hominem” arguments are considered invalid. Beyond logic, while freedom of expression is important, I believe it is not an absolute right. I would consider that the following go beyond the limit of legitimate freedom of expression: 1. abusive language as saying a person is mad or ignorant, and 2. the delving into the private life of an individual. We see the latter used quite often in the US political campaigns. Owing to these limits, there are libel laws in many countries to protect the reputation of persons. As has been said in the past “O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!”
[Daphne – Tedious David, back again. Ad hominen arguments are not valid in situations which require evidence and the proving of evidence, David. They are perfectly valid as criticism. An example: I don’t trust a man who wears a wig; hence if a party leader wears a wig I am not going to trust him.]
What is clearly wrong and devious is to divert the discussion of a hot legitimate topic into an irrelevant ad hominem attack on the personal qualities (true or false) of the participants. That is a sure indication to the inability of the guilty commenter to contribute anything that is relevant and that could add anything of merit to the discussion.
[Daphne – I disagree. Politicians are nothing without their personal qualities. We are not androids.]