How could such an established, renowned criminal lawyer have let the names slip his attention? I do know the answer of his boss Joe: “U x`fijjjjaaaa din?”

Ignorance and uncouthness have to do with IQ level.

IQ levels have to do with genetics and a bit of the “luck of the draw”.

If these “underclass people” were never born, it would be a glorious thing for them and especially us and society in general.

Your comment does not touch the essential point in my last sentence. I am speaking of “right-thinking” persons. Do you consider any person who ignores, condones or support violence in the pursuit of his political aims as a right-thinking person? For your information I can well understand why non-right-thinking persons do embrace violence.

There is nothing wrong in having a moral, ethical code and sticking to it. Things must have come to a pretty pass if in Malta that is considered a “problem” so much so that our prime minister brashly grants “waivers” from observing ministerial parliamentary and medical ethics.

The problem with your thinking (and mine as well as a number of other people reading this blog) is that we stick to a certain moral and ethical code.

This is why you “cannot understand how any right-thinking person could ignore, excuse or support this move in this party.”

Once you waiver those very ethics and morals that we hold dear, you have Muscat and the regression to the violent and criminal past. In a sense, this is why there is so much opposition to the slogan “religio et patria.”

I firmly believe that religion has no place in a secular state (I have read many of your comments over the years and I am sure you will disagree with me on this part). However I do not make mistake in removing religion and leaving a moral gap (at least we’ll probably agree on this).

Something else more sinister usually springs to fill in the gap as a value system. (It is not atheism that is the problem but immorality and amorality).

In Labour’s case it is Muscat, the movement, positive energy and what have you. None of that is moral.

You are right about Muscat as the individual.

I was trying to summarise the entire history of the Labour party since Mintoff.

Mine was an academic exercise, at the group level of analysis, aimed at describing the patterns of behaviour of the Labour Party over a long period of time. Muscat is the fruit of those patterns of behaviour and a means to transmit and reinforce them.

Muscat is not possible without the Labour Party behaviour.

Of course they feel at home. The PL has shown clearly that it sides with people who the law courts have convicted – vide Cyrus Engerer and now the judge, and the list will go on. In this way criminals know where to go for support.

There are many reasons why Muscat pursues the shady dealings you describe.

First of all it has to be within your character to do so. Can you imagine Fenech Adami taking certain shameful decisions that Muscat took during the past year? Certainly not.

There is one more important factor that should never be left out when dealing with Muscat. It has got nothing to do with the Labour Party or the good of the country. The man is so full of himself. It is ALL about him. He wants to be admired for things which others never did or dreamt of doing. It is a case of the end justifies the means.

To accomplish this, he needs to be in power and therefore the need to placate people in return for votes.

Why else would Muscat continue in his shady dealings, open Maltese citizenship to all and sundry, and maintain the argument for decriminalising drugs.