My response to Jeffrey’s remarks in The Times today

Published: June 20, 2012 at 6:55pm

This is the statement I sent to The Times this evening, after reading Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s remarks in a news report today. The links to both reports are below.

I refer to the story running under the headline ‘JPO told Cachia Caruana last week his vote would not be personal’.

I will deal only with the parts which refer expressly to me, by way of legal right of reply. Failure to publish will result in the appropriate action.

The relevant paragraphs are below:

Dr Pullicino Orlando yesterday continued to criticise Mr Cachia Caruana’s “closeness” to columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
He said it was unacceptable for high-ranking PN and government officials to “cavort” with her when she “disgustingly” derided Nationalist “icons” like the late President Emeritus Guido de Marco.

“It is precisely because of this situation that I voted like I did yesterday. Otherwise I would have been giving him a stamp of validity to this type of behaviour.”

This is my response.

Though I have known Richard Cachia Caruana most of my adult life, the reality is that over the last four years, since the general election in 2008, we have met in person perhaps 12 times, and all but two of those occasions involved other people, including my husband.

Another two, around April 2009, involved Dr Pullicino Orlando and his consort, Carmen Camilleri Ciantar. This year, I have met Mr Cachia Caruana precisely three times. In the whole of last year, I met him twice, and one of those was while greeting each other as he left and I entered a Christmas drinks party at mutual friends.

I do not think that even Dr Pullicino Orlando would describe this as “cavorting”. I can only think, therefore, that he is not familiar with the facts and has either been falsely informed or has formed an impression based on inadequate observation and on prejudice.

The fact that I am a woman and Richard Cachia Caruana is not appears to have fired up Dr Pullicino Orlando’s imagination. He is fortunate that both he and Saviour Balzan of Malta Today are men, which leaves others less scope to speculate about their relationship.

I criticise all politicians without fear or favour, wherever I deem fit, and this has included the people Dr Pullicino Orlando describes as “icons of the Nationalist Party”. I notice that he failed to mention the prime minister, who I have criticised many times, most notably on divorce and Libya, perhaps because he considers it acceptable for Mr Cachia Caruana to “cavort”, all of three times a year, with somebody who has criticised Lawrence Gonzi.

It is not up to Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando to decide which politicians are allowed to speak to which journalists, and vice versa. Claiming quite disingenuously that his behaviour in parliament last Monday was based on his moral objection to Richard Cachia Caruana talking to journalists, when those journalists are critical of him and his “icons”, makes it clear that he has freedom of speech issues, of which intolerance of criticism is evidence.

He also demonstrates that he does not know his obligations as a member of parliament. Those obligations include the duty to vote on the matter in hand – the contents of the motion – rather than for his own, apparently spurious, reasons. Dr Pullicino Orlando also needs to remember that he remains my representative in parliament, for I was one of those who voted for him. While a constituent can and should criticise the actions of her representative in parliament, because she put him there to do represent her, the roles cannot be reversed. A member of parliament cannot and should not use the platform given to him by his constituents to attack one or more of them.

I am particularly perplexed at Dr Pullicino Orlando’s confused notion that Richard Cachia Caruana deserves the ultimate censure for the reasons he gave to your journalist. He has given different reasons elsewhere, most notably today on Facebook.

Using his own yardstick, how much more severely should he be censured for actually cohabiting with a member of the Labour Party and socialising with others, including the Leader of the Opposition? But then, perhaps he does not “cavort” with them. Also, he belongs, at least nominally, to the liberal party, which would not countenance any such thing.

Daphne Caruana Galizia
BIDNIJA




10 Comments Comment

  1. etil says:

    Atta girl. Sock it to them all.

  2. Jozef says:

    At this point, Jeffrey intends to cause as much damage as possible. It seems this blog matters more than ever.

    There’s also a subtle threat directed at the PM in what he says. It’s incredible how predictable Joseph has become.

  3. Ghoxrin Punt says:

    I find it absolutely disgusting that members of parliament voted in by us are very happy to put their own interests and petty catfights above us, the people who put them there.

    I am also sick and tired of these statements of it being ‘nothing personal’ when it is very clear that it is personal.

    Frankly speaking, JPO excusing himself on the basis that he feels that ‘cavorting’ with a journalist is wrong is the most infantile reason that I have ever heard.

    What angers me most is the common misperception that women are hell to work with because all we do is bitch. I have as yet to see, among women, the levels of viciousness and bitchiness that have been the hallmark of the last few weeks of these men’s behaviour in parliament and outside.

    The actions of both the Opposition and certain ‘liberal’ Nationalists have been the most disgusting example of what happens when personal agendas and greed conflict with the common good. Shame on you all for putting your interests above ours.

    At this stage I call on JPO, Mugliett and Debono to prove that they are men and resign for a job very badly done and to make way for those people who really represent the Nationalist ideals, which have nothing to do with this kind of perversity.

  4. Francis Saliba MD says:

    JPO’s unbelievable sophistry is that he justifies his desctruction of Richard Cachia Caruana’s brilliant career as Malta’s representative in the European Union because he (JPO) has a chip on his shoulder with regard to someone else, namely Daphne Caruana Galizia and her revelatory blogs.

  5. Grezz says:

    Well said.

  6. xmun says:

    My gut feeling is that the events of the last few weeks are not over.

    Franco started off with his personal prize – Carm Mifusd Bonnici whilst at the same time testing the waters of repercussion.

    This week Jeffrey and Jesmond hastily removed Richard Cachia Caruana, depriving Malta and the Prime Minister of a valuable negotiator and advisor.

    Next in their line of fire will be the Prime Minister himself – death by a thousand cuts.

    Maybe somebody is closely watching from 1850 km away

    • Angus Black says:

      He can watch all he wants, he can manipulate his operatives in our own front yard but he may rest assured that any hope of becoming party leader, and therefore Prime Minister, was dashed a long time ago and at his age and with his kind of attitude, there will be no second chances for him.

      He should continue to serve his sentence in Brussels, collect every euro he can get and if he is smart enough he should retire once the full sentence has been served and, just to keep active perhaps, serve on the Board of Directors for SARGAS.

  7. k farrugia says:

    ‘ mutual ‘ friends ? You mean ‘common’ friends , surely.

  8. Legal view says:

    Can the Times publish comments underneath your right of reply?

    http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120621/letters/To-put-the-record-straight.425266

    Article 21(2) of the Press Act:

    “In the case of a newspaper, a reply in terms of subarticle (1)
    shall be published as a separate article and without being interpolated with any comments or other material that does not form part of the reply, with equal prominence …”

Leave a Comment