I see Franco Debono hasn’t changed his harassment tactics
Round about the time that Franco Debono was declaring in public that he had not renewed his Law Commissioner contract (as though it’s up to him), he was also making a big show on Facebook of thanking those who encouraged him in his aspirations to stand for election to the European Parliament.
I wonder what happened there, but the Labour Party clearly wasn’t biting so suddenly we had a new Facebook page encouraging Debono to set up his own party (it was probably him).
He really hasn’t changed his negotiating tactics, has he. No wonder Justice Minister Owen Bonnici suddenly stood up and left a presentation meeting and crashed a few minutes later. Somebody joked that he must have been harassed by phone calls from Franco Debono.
When you match the dates, it probably wasn’t a joke at all. Bonnici crashed on 3 April. These Facebook posts of Debono’s are on 2 and 4 April.
24 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I suppose the minister can defend himself saying the phone kept ringing even though he did switch it off the moment he sat behind the wheel.
In the mean time Randolph Debattista and Cyrus Engerer are in self-imposed exile in Scansano (Grosseto) together with their junior fag-hag Alessandra Pace.
Did the government pay for their holiday to keep them away from being seen anywhere close to Labour’s Positive Engerer electoral campaign?
Remember Anglu Farrugia’s ‘acceptance’ to represent the Labour Party in a Falkland Islands conference one month before last year’s general elections?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130210/local/anglu.457026
Wasn’t he supposed to be helping in the Labour election campaign. It isn’t time for holidays.
Why did they take Alessandra Pace with them, as a chaperone?
Franco Debono the second, and isn’t that the story of his life.
199 likes is not exactly ‘eluf’. It seems that mathematics is not exactly his forte.
He scored 100 in religion, not maths.
Oh, I thought that if you clicked there, Facebook would automatically dial 199 for the men in white coats.
I think Franco’s still hard-wired to the grotto.
The plural of elf is elves not ‘eluf’ you silly man.
He most definitely had a say in the design of the Partit Popolari logo. The giveaway: it’s purple. He is an ardent Fiorentina supporter.
What colour is Fiorentina’s kit? How are they referred to in Italy?
Daphne, I’ve read somewhere, not sure if on this blog, that Franco Debono exposed a pen drive behind the magistrate in the Engerer case, so as to blackmail the victim not to go ahead with the case.
If that’s really the case, how come this issue hasn’t been given the required importance? Was it Debono or Engerer who did that. And if it was Debono, can the magistrate let such things be done by lawyers?
You’re about 5 days behind the news. But yes, he did, and yes, it is blackmail.
And yes, the brotherhood of the legal profession.
“Nixtieq nirringrazzja lil dawk l-eluf ta’ persuni …..”
Tal-qamel tirringrazzajhom minn fuq il-Facebook, iktar jekk huma eluf ta’ persuni. Is-sidien tal-Facebook imorru tajjeb. Il-Fiducja tan-nies tirbaha meta tahdem man-nies, u mhux mal-Facebook.
If it is true that Franco is harassing Owen Bonnici with phone calls, for his own good, Bonnici should ask Lawrence Gonzi for advice on how to cope.
[Daphne – Or he could just ask me: don’t answer, block his number, or hit the off button when he rings. He’s too proud to persist, but if you give him the time of day, you’re toast.]
I wish he’d call me. I think I shall send him another open letter.
If you sleep with the devil – expect him to give you a call
A sick man now, finally, in his well-deserved milieu.
The MLP.
It is sometimes hard for us liberals to explain why we don’t identify with Joseph Muscat’s brand of liberalism. I’m going to make a stab at giving an explanation because I think there is too much confusion as to what constitutes a liberal.
First, some definitions:
A LIBERAL is someone who believes in liberty and freedom for every one. Giving women the vote was a liberal act because it gave them the same freedom to choose their leaders that men had.
An ILLIBERAL is someone who believes that freedom is for the few and the privileged. Enslaving blacks was an illiberal act because it restricted their freedom for no other reason than the colour of their skin.
A CONSERVATIVE is someone who wants to conserve all the he believes is good and beautiful. Opposing the writing of a new constitution is a conservative act because you want to conserve something that has worked well throughout the years.
Illiberalism and conservatism are often mixed up but they shouldn’t be. The opposite of liberal is illiberal not conservative. One can be liberal and conservative at the same time but can never be liberal and illiberal at the same time.
Margaret Thatcher was so liberal that she set a closed market free (liberalism is not only about sexual issues, you know?) but she was so conservative that she had no qualms about going to war to conserve that which she believed to be British and democratic.
There are no contradictions in her attitude. Once the market was set free, she had to conserve that state of affairs. There’s no point in achieving something good and allowing it to rot or waste away.
On the other hand:
Flushing your loved one’s remains down a sewer is not liberal. It is an affront to decency and a destruction of cherished and comforting funereal.rites.
A prime minister sticking up for a convicted criminal is not liberal. It is an insult to the victim of the crime and a perversion of justice.
The decriminalisation of drugs is not liberal. It is a headache for parents who have to try that much harder to keep young people off drugs.
Treating tattooed and pierced individuals as if they are a persecuted minority is not liberal. It is a rejection of common sense.
Moreover, interchanging the terms ‘illiberal’ and ‘conservative’ tarnishes the reputation of those who came before us, and who painstakingly built the social structures we now take for granted and consider as normal.
The reason why people (homosexual or not) were not allowed to marry partners of the same gender is not because society was illiberal but because the institution of marriage was created for a very specific purpose: a stable unit in which children could be conceived and raised. Couples comprising two men or two women cannot conceive so they didn’t fit into the marriage concept. Likewise, women who were getting on in age were not considered marriage material, not because they couldn’t find love or because society was illiberal but because they were losing their ability to bear children. And the birth of children out of wedlock was frowned upon not because society was illiberal but because these children did not (and very often still do not) have a stable family unit in which to grow up.
Many people forget that ‘marriage for love’ is a relatively modern concept concocted by Hollywood. If you want to express love, you do it by nice words, kind gestures, kisses, chocolate, poems, love letters and flowers. There’s no need to marry. Some of the greatest romantics never do.
This might come as a shock to many who think that there has always been a secret plot by heterosexuals to keep gays from marrying but the truth of the matter is that HOMOSEXUALS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ALLOWED TO MARRY and indeed, many have done so (often unwisely) and went on to have children and raise families.
The state doesn’t try to figure out the sexual orientation of people about to get married. That is a purely personal matter. Every individual must decide beforehand whether marriage suits one’s lifestyle or not. If you’re a committed bachelor, a polygamist or a homosexual, then marriage (in its original form) doesn’t suit you. If a brand of shoes doesn’t suit you, it doesn’t mean that it is discriminating against you. You are free not to buy that brand and to opt for something different.
Being at liberty not to buy a brand of shoes; or not to marry, is in fact liberal. You have freedom of choice.
Many people don’t appreciate that same-sex-marriage laws fundamentally change the concept of marriage from a legal point of view. Without the possibility of procreation, marriage becomes purely about love. That is uncharted territory for the government. Loveless marriages either don’t last or are profoundly unhappy but, up to now, love has never been the authorities’ business. Not even the all-powerful genie could make Princess Jasmine fall in love with Aladdin. Governments deal with easily identifiable biological facts, statistics and quantifiable assets and not abstract notions. Love is hard to define and virtually impossible to quantify.
It is also quite wishy-washy. If marriage is only about love, why not let committed bachelors marry the person they love the most: themselves, or why not let people and pets who show affection for each other marry? Ridiculous I know, but it is the logic of the concept taken to its most extreme.
‘Marriage for procreation’ is a pretty much airtight concept. ‘Marriage for love’ is not.
That’s not to say that there isn’t scope for extending the definition of marriage to mean a union between any two people who love each other. I believe that there is, ‘adoption rights’ and all, but let’s not pretend that a great wrong has been righted. There was never a great wrong because ALL INDIVIDUALS (sexual orientation doesn’t come into it) have always been allowed to marry or not to marry. That IS liberalism.
To conclude, Joseph Muscat’s brand of liberalism rubs us up the wrong way because it is more akin to anarchy, wanton destruction of social norms and at some points, even illiberalism (Cyrus Engerer’s ex boyfriend has been denied a sense of justice for example). He also takes credit where credit is not due and confuses the terms ‘illiberal’ and ‘conservative’.
Meanwhile, I proclaim myself to be a liberal AND a conservative, and I’ll be voting for the Nationalist Party in the next election.
Thank you, Matthew S.
Well worth reading. It is useful to to undestand how Joseph Muscat’s brand of liberalism “is more akin to anarchy, wanton destruction of social norms and at some points, even illiberalism.”
Franco Debono is still self-praising, excessively preoccupied about his achievements, always expecting to be recognised as superior and special, even without having really achieved any superior accomplishments.
He is literally unable to adjust to reality and has never stopped causing pain and boredom to society at large with his attitude and behaviour.
He should seriously consider looking after himself.
Pardon my ignorance Daphne but who exactly is Franco Debono?
Isn’t he the author of some obscure volume on cock-raising, written in verse? I remember seeing him on one of those 1 a.m. intellectual culture talk shows on Super One.
This chap who claims to be ” il-mohh u r-ruh wara r-riforma tal-gustizzja u r-riforma kostituzzjonali ” was the same person who threatened and bullied by means of a pen drive the ex boyfriend of Cyrus.