Do by all means speak ill of the dead if they were influential in life
My column in The Malta Independent today – read the rest on The Malta Independent site (www.independent.com.mt):
As I watched people party all over Britain (but mainly in London’s Brixton, scene of some of the worst riots under her premiership) to celebrate the end of Margaret Thatcher’s life, I couldn’t help but think of Malta last August, when Dom Mintoff died.
Plenty of people felt the need to do exactly the same thing, but because laws on freedom of expression are not enough to guarantee that freedom, they could not. Or rather, they dared not because they were made to feel wrong about it.
So instead we were treated to a series of insipid newspaper articles and misplaced hagiographic comments by mealy-mouthed individuals who felt differently about Mintoff when he was alive, but who succumbed to the social police now that he was dead. They were laughable, more so from my perspective in London at the time.
I thought to myself how pathetic they were, feeling the need to crawl to their past oppressor even in death – or rather, to crawl to those who have succeeded him, lest they be personally oppressed in the present.
I wrote about how I felt about his death on my blog, and received a thousand comments of serious abuse, some of them even death threats, others of a vulgarity so inventive that I found myself thinking what a shame it is that Maltese social culture seems to have reserved its greatest imagination and creativity for devising obscenities so grave that they are beyond translation.
(…)
24 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
u margaret thatcher ma kienet il-mizerabbli li kien Dom Mintoff. Kienet mara demokratika li ghamlet isem fid-dinja ghas-sewwa u mhux ghar-ragunijiet hziena.
Great article and well said. That last statement was quite the punch-line.
I think your ‘Glory, Glory Alleluia’ article on Mintoff’s death has been vindicated in light of reactions to Baroness Thatcher’s death.
[Daphne – It didn’t need vindication, and vindication does not come into it. People in Malta will still look at what is happening in Britain after Thatcher’s death and think that ‘we should be different’. That was/is my point: that Maltese people apply a double standard: Malta v the free world.]
One of Mintoff’s notorious acts:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/4222619/National-Bank-of-Malta
No. That is one of Mintoff s uncalled for actions. The worst was the suspension of the Constitutional Court.
And part of one of Mintoff’s notorious statements, when in the process of forcibly taking that same bank over from its rightful owners, aided and abetted by his shameless, ball-less minions:
‘Nigi nitnejjek mill-Kostituzzjoni. Mhux jien ktibta.’
Memories of Mintoff will survive the generations, but not for the reasons the bastard himself would have wished.
She showed people how to go out to work to earn their living and how not to rely on the state for favours, money, jobs and freebies!
I was appalled to hear that the minister was shocked at the amount of poor children around.
I feel sorry for children who are living in extreme poverty and I would do anything I could to help them, but I am not a politician who has the interest of a country at hand.
I’m even more disgusted by how people always manage to use children to defend the fact that the previous administration didn’t do anything to improve the poverty these children go through. Poor children are being used to stress the poverty argument in this new way of doing politics.
Leave the children out of it. The state shouldn’t not get into how and why kids are living in extreme cases of poverty – there’s the church, caritas, commissioner and other organisations to work on that.
The state’s duty is to make sure, people are educated enough to fend for themselves, to create jobs, opportunities, a healthy society, so that the children they bring in will not suffer.
The state’s duty is not to use politics to make the government intervene and the government should not intervene as the message sent is one that ‘I am here to help you’.
The new adminsitration shouldn’t do anything of that sort because more people will be flocking to the minister’s door for help, as they have been doing, if the minister is giving the idea that the way of doing politics is by way of charity.
This method will only increase the poverty situation (which exists in every civilised country). Will raise taxes further, will burden society further, will increase unemployment.
Stop the nonsense, please!
I still find Beppe Fenech Adami’s attending Mintoff’s funeral as extermely hypocritical. It was under Mintoff’s watch (let’s avoid saying orders) that the Fenech Adami household was attacked, including physical harm to Mrs Fenech Adami.
The whole state funeral was a farce. And to think that the miserly bastard even got his own funeral paid out of our taxes,
I was wondering what your thoughts on the British reaction to Thatcher’s death were.
I have friends and colleagues here who thought Thatcher was ‘all right” but made mistakes and some of whom despise her as a politician. Reactions from both groups of friends have been that celebrations and parties in the streets were in bad taste and disrespectful to Thatcher’s family. Both sets of friends/colleagues also have a lot of respect for how she dealt with being a woman in politics.
My view is that in this country (the UK), where there is freedom of speech, the well educated would know that freedom of speech doesn’t mean that it’s OK to disrespect the family of the deceased at such a sensitive time. It’s in bad taste! You can do it, but it’s shallow. You can disagree with the politics, but you’re in no place to judge the person in general.
You go on and on about freedom of speech but I wonder whether you realize that any sort of freedom should no override the freedom of other citizens. You should be free to write about what you want, but as in this case, the family of the deceased should be FREE to mourn in peace. Freedom comes with responsibility, especially not to impede on the freedom of others. To me it seems like you do not comprehend this very important point on freedom.
When you published your infamous blog celebrating Mintoff’s death I found that to be in bad taste. However, you’re a journalist and to be successful at your job you need people to read what you write. In that sense, you definitely did a good job. A lot of people read what you were writing around that time and you attracted the attention of people who wouldn’t have normally read your blog and you (probably) got them to read some of your more substantial articles.
My view on your infamous article are the same as they were at the time. It was in bad taste, however very cunning from a journalistic point of view.
[Daphne – You are wrong on so many counts that I don’t know where to begin, so I shan’t bother. I’ll just tell you this: bad taste is not against the law. If it were, 99% of Malta would be in jail. And this: there is no such thing as freedom to mourn in peace, just as there is no such thing as freedom to live in peace when your mother is Margaret Thatcher or your father Dom Mintoff. It comes with the territory. More pertinently, it is those who commented favourably (even when they did not believe it themselves) about Mintoff on his death who were inordinately out of line. Shameless posturing is always beyond the pale, even when it is designed to be well-meaning. I do not take lessons in what is or what is not ‘good taste’. People who speak about good and bad taste are the equivalent of those who say serviette, lounge and ‘garidge’. Their main concern is not for other people but for what other people might think about them. Those who are secure in their own skin don’t give a flying monkey’s about any of that – the governing principle is that other people can think what they bloody well like and stuff them and their opinions. If this is hard for you to understand, try accepting it instead.]
It’s funny how I knew that the “bad taste” comment would be the one that would sting Maybe you do give a “flying monkey’s” after all. That you “shan’t bother” about the rest hints towards not having a sound argument for the rest, although it seems to me that your sizable paragraph addressed most of my comment.
[Daphne – You are quite wrong. It doesn’t sting at all. It irritates greatly. The concerns of the socially anxious are not mine, and their expectation that I should share them is misplaced and very, very annoying. Bad taste doesn’t bother me. Bad manners do. Too many people can’t tell the difference and confuse the one with the other. Unfortunately, the socially anxious don’t understand this, because they think their anxiety is normal and the natural default position. It isn’t. My idea of hell is a long line of people fretting about what other people think of them, all wearing the same clothes and living in the same kind of houses, and having the same conversations and doing what they believe to be socially acceptable and in good taste. The land of beige and black and disapproving twittering.]
I didn’t imply anywhere in my comment that bad taste is against the law. There are many things the law allows that could be done in bad taste.
You’re right, I actually do say “lounge” on occasion (specifically when the word “lounge” refers to a location I’d like to meet someone such as “business lounge”, “first class lounge” etc.). I’ve never said “serviette” or “garidge”. I thought I might just give you some more data for your study on people who use the phrase “bad taste”.
I understand your point of view on why you said what you said about Mintoff. I still think that it was in bad taste. Thinking that I’m ignorant and slow because I still think that it is in bad taste shows that you’re the ignorant one because you’ve no idea who I am. Telling me that I say things like “garidge” really just shows that your passing judgement on me is simply incorrect and the rest of your judgement on me, like the implication that I’m slow, is also much more incorrect.
Although I can see how this disguise of a screen name can make you think so. After all, it is intentional. :)
[Daphne – I never said you are ignorant and slow. You are obviously not ignorant because you form proper sentences. I said that you are overly preoccupied with what other people think of you, and desperately keen that you be thought well of and a cut above the rest. And that’s an accurate observation. When people describe something as being in bad taste, what they are actually saying is that they think of themselves as being in good taste and want others to think the same. What I did say is that those who discuss taste in the behaviour of others are socially anxious (which is true). The non-socially-anxious sort people according to manners, not taste, and don’t confuse the two. Saying of a dead bastard ‘May God rot his soul’ is perfectly acceptable. Greeting somebody the wrong way, wearing inappropriate clothes for an occasion over which somebody has taken a great deal of trouble, or handling your knife and fork badly, are not. I don’t see why I should have to explain these things. You suffer anxieties about certain things. I don’t. Leave it at that. This is not a point-scoring exercise, so don’t treat it as one.]
Not just in the streets – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8&feature=share
To add to my previous comment. I REALLY like the speaker’s comment at the end. I doubt our present speaker could be so eloquent.
Daphne, if you would like such vulgarities to be studied by a professor of intercultural hermeneutics, I could provide you with a contact.
Arhuwwa x’taqlaghlhom: Thatcher, No, No, No!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tetk_ayO1x4
I read your piece. I agree so much it makes my eyes water. You said it all: the artificial Gosford Park bubble recreated in North Africa, the false sense of Latin honour, the Sicilian washing away of sins by death, the Middle Eastern funeral scenes, and the feeling like a stranger in your own country, which is the saddest thing of all. I too feel homeless.
Hadn’t you said you lived elsewhere?
No. Even if I did, I still have a Maltese passport. The thing I hate most after my genes.
Daphne, in your article you wrote about the Middle Eastern mentality of some of us, here’s another example:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130410/local/government-writes-to-vatican-requesting-talks-for-revision-of.465015
Why should our Joseph Zapatero discuss Maltese law with a foreign entity?There’s nothing to talk about with the Holy See. The Maltese Parliament has the power to change any law, no need to “dicuss”, just inform the Holy See politely…punto e basta!
With another note verbal he could have cordially informed the Holy See that annulments by the Church would still be recognised , but couples should be left at liberty which tribunal they choose , as there are instances where one of the spouses prefers not to use the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.
If Joseph wants to put up a show , then the Vatican can tell him to enter from the side door.
POSTED BY: Carmel Grima — 11/04/2013 13:17:16 Ma qalux il-wikileaks li fl-15/10/1979 ministry fil-gvern tieghu kien qed jirkattah u qalghalu l-irvellijiet ta’ dak inhar; li Dom Mintoff kellu ihalli bniedem innocenti u habib tieghu(infatti li kieku ma kienx ghal indhill personali tieghu, Lorry Sant ta ordni biex joqtluh f’Kastilja stess biex jinghalqu l-kotba)Karm Grima jigi iffrejmjat min l-avukar taghana stess; li wara l-elezzjoni tal-1980 l-Imhallef Lino Agius baghat lill-missieri, Karm Grima ghal ghomru Monte Carmeli fuq tlitt certifikati medici foloz u hu kien jaf x’se jigri bhalma kien jaf Dr. EFA u Dr. de Marco imma kellu jghalaq halqu ghax il-Lorry kellu ritratti personali hafna li wara ta’ bniedem baxx kixifhoim fil-parlament stess; li l-Kabinett ta’ MLP ta’ 1980 ha l-gurament mhux lejn il-Prim Mintoff imma lejn il-Kabinett stess ghax dom Mintoff ried li issir elezzjoni gdida ghax ma gabx il-maggioranza tal-unijiet (qalli ex ministru tar-ruh hafna);u li minflok irranga l-hnizirijiet li kienu qed isiru minflok warrab u ghamel bniedem incapaci li jaffronta l-Lorry u ic-corma tieghu;li dak iz-zmien kemm il-PN u kemm l-MLP kienu klikka fit-terrur li inqala biex jidher l-MLP ikrah.(elementi taz-zewg partiti).
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/national/Dom-Mintoff-The-Kissinger-Cables-20130411
There is a difference between disagreeing with and criticising both living and dead persons and insulting and sowing hatred against both living and dead people. In this sense I still think that the Roman saying on dead people as well as libel laws are still valid.
[Daphne – You exaggerate greatly, David, besides being a living and breathing example of the mentality I describe (and despise). I said what I thought about Mintoff while he was alive, and death changes nothing about my views or my willingness to describe them.]
When Mintoff died I said on Facebook, “Satan is busy tonight” and all hell broke loose. Because in this country everyone is a saint on his death bed and once you are dead we seem to forget all the bad things you did in your life.
She will not have a state funeral because her wishes were to not have one. Her funeral will be the same as that of the late Queen Mother’s and Princess Diana’s.
The funeral, it is said, will cost 10 million. The costs are due to high security costs, needed.
But she brought 72 billion into the British economy.
May God Bless you always, and may you always rest in peace, Baroness Thatcher.
One great leader – most definitely. Bil-fatti u bir-raguni.