Although I still have some hope that this parliamentary lynching process cannot be used against any public officer, or any other citizen, without safeguards (in the sense that I believe that one can challenge this process in a constitutional court of law), it is not the actual use of this process, but the threat of its use, that is most worrying.

It can be used to put moral or psychological pressure on the public officer (or citizen) to comply with undue political pressure and interference.

We do not have a Labour government yet.

The only way the citizen can be protected from a Labour government is to not have one in the first place.

Yes, and in the USA during the 1950s, they had the infamous Senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy.

Just Google “McCarthyism” and the “House Un-American Activities Committee” if you need any historical context for the current Malta parallel: the abuse of Parliament, as a political weapon, by the PL (with the necessary collusion of the PN’s “Three Muscateers” backbench).

Besides, he cannot (presumably) take the Parliamentarian to Court for calumnious accusation, because the Parliamentarian has the parliamentary privilege.

If any Tom, Dick and Harry go to the Police and accuse anybody falsely of some criminal act, then the wrongly accused can file a complaint and ask the police to take criminal proceedings against the person who would have filed the false report for calumnious accusation. However, this remedy -or an analogous one – is not open against Parliamentarians.

Indeed, when the Constitution was being conceived and when Parliamentary procedure was being established, no one thought that the base concepts of democracy would, one day, be so “unknown” (though the matter is more serious than “simple” ignorance) that a Public Servant could be dragged before Parliament for any reason.

So, the implication is that if it so suits any idiot in Parliament, then you just have to play the sitting duck. That’s all. You have no recourse or remedy.

And this is worrying. This is frightful and, worst of all, this is a horrible throwback to the 1980’s and 1970’s – only now it’s much worse because Labour (and the Muscateers) are using our own democratic safeguards against all those who are somehow connected to the public sector without these having any recourse at law.

And again, I tie this with what I said earlier: should Gonzi yield to this, he would be yielding to undemocratic practices and procedures. Above all, he would be acting against all that the PN has stood for along all these years.

If he does, he would be seconding (for want of a better word) this whole tragic procedure. He would become an unwitting accomplice and by staying on he is showing that he will not bow down to these amoral people and their insignificant minds.

On another note, Daphne, I look at what’s happening in Parloament and shudder. The implications are very serious. We have already seen Labour using the impeachment procedues against us (the people) when they voted against the motion to impeach Judge Depasquale. Now RCC and CMB.

In the latter case, it was clearly personal and Franco Debono used the PL to achieve his aims.

The former is, in its implications, much more serious because, it would seem, nobody is immune to Parliament but Parliament is immune to us all. Any person in the public sector who is treading toes or is simply not comfortable can be dragged before Parliament. (I will continue from my desktop with your permission)

He probably refused to do so because he realised that he wouldn’t be able to use his beloved teleprompter.

Nothing, I suppose. And it’s clear they’re intent on doing it.

I see dark times ahead.