By making it a point to upload a photo of himself at Le Procope. It was a favourite haunt of 18th century French philosophers and intellectuals. Context is all.

[Daphne – I doubt that’s the reason they chose it. Like all historic restaurants everywhere, it’s a tourist magnet.]

I laugh at the literal vs abstract. What is literal is also abstract. I will not repeat my point but naturally I would not glorify crime. There have been murderers who were also famous artists. Their art in no way can be interpreted to mean that murder is acceptable.

In Italy a former terrorist leader Renato Curcio is also considered as an intellectual. He has written many publications. A number of years Italian state tv interviewed many former terrorists.

[Daphne – Italy is one of the most corrupt countries on earth, David. Its main gift to the world was not food, or fashion, or great painting, or Leonardo da Vinci. It was organised crime. And the reason organised crime flourished there is because the system was inherently corrupt to begin with, and democracy was weak. Only in Italy would a terrorist leader be championed as an intellectual. Everywhere else he would be a terrorist with pretensions.]

In Malta a book was written about a convicted double murderer who died recently. This person was also interviewed on a local tv programme. Probably you would say that this is unacceptable. However I distinguish the person from his deeds.

[Daphne – More fool you, then, David, because the deeds are committed by the person and not by some alien possessing spirit. Know that while there are good people who do bad things, there are also bad people, very bad people, and the fact that they sometimes do good things doesn’t change what they inherently are.]

Here he is, dining at Le Procope

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t31.0-8/10295375_10152097502932951_2538094071488955150_o.jpg

Yet again, we have a complete impostor posing as an intellectual, and none of my countrymen will challenge him. This is what it’s always been about. It’s not about Labour and PN. It’s this. The charade.

[Daphne – How is he posing as an intellectual there? He’s with his octogenarian father, somebody’s south-east Asian girlfriend, and two men who look like a couple of crooks.]

I agree. Meinrad Calleja’s been reinvented as a pet academic project. That doesn’t make him a competent academic, much less a philosopher.

Yes, we may never know 100% if a person is not involved in some criminal activities. However if a convicted person has no pending cases and one assumes the police force and the security service monitor known convicted criminals, then I say this person has a right to a normal life.

If say a convicted murderer is freed from prison and then decides to be a painter. Should a museum prevent him from organising an exhibition of his paintings in its premises?

[Daphne – David, this is not a new debate and the answer is yes. Incidentally, your choice of verb is wrong. Saying that a museum ‘prevents’ people from holding exhibitions there assumes that artists holding exhibitions in a museum is the default situation. In the real world outside Malta, artists do not hold exhibitions in museums. Museums themselves organise and curate exhibitions of work by notable artists. It is the museum’s exhibition and not the artist’s. Artists hold exhibitions in galleries, always at the invitation of the gallery – and if they are not invited to show their work at a gallery, this does not mean that the gallery is ‘preventing’ them. A certain kind of gallery might show work by a murderer just for the edgy USP, but then again, it would all depend on what sort of murderer. Not a child murderer, not a murderer-cum-rapist, and most certainly not a serial killer of women. There would be an outcry and the gallery would suffer – justifiably.

There is an ongoing parallel debate about whether criminals should be allowed to profit from their crime by, for example, writing books about it. You would probably argue, why not? Try, for a moment, to imagine why not.]

Baxxter, you’re going to like the editor’s note on Le Point this week:

Soft Communism all due to the idiocy promoted by Liberals.

U hadd ma’ nqabad.

X’kumbinazzjoni, marelli.

Dawn l-affarijiet kif jsiru bla ma’ jkun jaf hadd?

Vapur ta’ “Ryan” jinqabad, hadd mill-gurnali jaghmel one plus one.

Keith Schembri jhott iz-zokkor tieghu fil-bini tas-Super One u mbaghad dax-xoghol jinbieh fil- More supermarkets ta’ “Ryan” u hadd ma jara xejn.

Hadd m’ghandu l-guts jghid xejn. Dawn il-boloh bhal Kurt Farrugia li lanqas jilhqu sa pesis Joseph, jekk ghandu.

U meta’ jigi anke Saviour b’xi domanda ma’ jghidulu xejn.

Miskin.

We must have run out of “intelletwali”, Mike, now that Serracino Inglott is dead. The rest of them – Oliver Friggieri, Joe Friggieri – don’t do mejda tal-qubbajt talks. At a pinch, they could’ve roped in Maria Grech Ganado (whatever happened to her?), Vicki Ann Cremona (whatever happened to her?) and John Schranz, bless him.

Malta sucks. Because its intellectuals suck.

Spot on, Baxxter. The latest norm for modern society – everyone’s opinion is valid.

U x’kumbinazzjoni li Ryan Il-Friza harab u tnejn ohra inqatlu.