The proof of Joseph’s tolerant pudding
Published:
January 12, 2015 at 2:06pm
This piece of Valletta street art only survived briefly before being removed by The Authorities. It doesn’t have much going for it in the way of creativity, but that isn’t why it was made to disappear.
12 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Grassroots campaigning at its finest.
Why always you?
It wasn’t me.
There are myriads of Josephs in Malta. Next time, the person who made it make it read ‘MUSCAT’ instead. So I suppose some guy named Joseph walking by was offended and removed it. Or perhaps the father of Jesus himself?
His name is God, not Joseph. Only this Joseph thinks they are one and the same.
Daphne, I read your TMI piece of yesterday which is excellent, as usual. However, I would like to highlight this part:
“The big test for him, of course, will come in parliament, as it did for all MPs who voted No in the EU membership and divorce referendums. If people vote to end spring hunting, how will he vote in parliament? Muscat said he will respect the will of the people, but we don’t yet know what this means. “I do not sit on the fence,” he said. But that doesn’t make sense either. A referendum by definition forces you off the fence if you decide to vote. So unless this is a snide remark at Alfred Sant’s proud failure to vote in the EU membership referendum – remember how he waved his voting document at us on television afterwards? – I can’t see what Muscat means. I suppose he can always pretend to change his mind when it suits him personally, as he did with that particular referendum -campaigning for the No vote for five years, then voting No, then rushing to be first in line to buzz off to Brussels as a member of the European Parliament.
http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-01-11/blogs-opinions/Bang-bang-je-suis-une-tourterelle-6736128481
In my opinion, Joseph Muscat’s remark about not sitting on the fence could not refer to Alfred Sant’s abstention in the EU referendum.
Unless Joseph Muscat was lying before the the EU vote – in which case we have to question if he is telling the hunters another whopper this time – he too had said that he would not be voting in the EU referendum.
“Minn naha tieghi jien iddecidejt li mhux se nkun qed nivvota ghax ma rridx incappas idejja ma’ referendum li huwa ghodda politika u li ma ghandu xejn nazzjonali fih.
Il-vot inpoggih fi frame.”
See here:
http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2014/05/a-timely-reminder-3/
So he does sit on the fence when it suits him. Which means that last week, he lied again. Unless he lied in 2003.
In that post of 1 May 2014, I had suggested to journalists to ask to see the frame with his voting document – you know, like the journalists had wanted to see the arlogg tal-lira – only that Muscat’s EU vote now has a much bigger value in Maltese history. At the time I had suggested he donates it to a history museum. Now I would suggest he auctions it for charity – or for the Community Chest Fund.
So I renew my request to journalists: it is important – in order to give credibility to the prime minister’s declared voting intention in the Spring hunting referendum on the one hand, and the claim that he never sits on the fence on the other – to ask to see that frame as a proof that he had kept the promise he had made in 2003.
On the other hand, I perfectly agree with your observation that it is how he votes in Parliament that makes all the difference. I think journalists should ask this question now:
“Mr. Prime Minister, if the majority of the Maltese electorate votes against Spring hunting on 11 April, how will you vote in Parliament, given that you do not sit on the fence?”
And let him give the journalists another “on the fence” reply, like “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”
But I think that hunters – and the public – should know in advance how he will vote in Parliament if the majority votes against Spring hunting. And since he does not sit on the fence, I am sure he will give us an honest answer.
There will be no “vote in Parliament”. If the NO side gets a majority, the relative legislation will automatically become null and void.
Check out the Referenda Act, Article 20.
So much for Je suis Charlie
How long did it take you to put it up?
[Daphne – It wasn’t me. I have other means of communication and hate isn’t part of my preferred vocabulary. This is one of the pieces of street art that are regularly being exhibited in the framework of the old opera house.]
A good example of Joseph Muscat’s intolerance is the breach of privilege complaint that he brought against Simon Busuttil before the House Privileges Committee.
When Joseph was 9 years old.
Malta’s democracy is cast in doubt
By Alexander MacLeod, Special to The Christian Science Monitor March 1, 1983
London — Can the island of Malta still be accurately described as a democracy? Or is it a rigidly controlled state in which political opposition is no longer accepted?
These questions have become a focus of international attention since Malta’s Prime Minister Dominic Mintoff, leader of the Labor Party, banned contacts between foreign embassies and members of the opposition Nationalist Party.
The prime minister imposed the ban in January after expressing irritation that foreign diplomats were in touch with the Nationalists under their leader, Edward Fenech Adami.
The ban has drawn attention to the fact that since the 1981 general elections , the Nationalist Party has failed to take its seats in the Maltese Parliament. When the elections were held, the Nationalists gained 51 percent of the vote, but won only 31 seats out of a total 65. They protested that Mr. Mintoff had rigged constituency boundaries in the Labor Party’s favor, enabling him to keep the Nationalist Party from power.
At first the Nationalists boycotted parliamentary sessions and demanded fresh elections under new rules. Mintoff refused and last April declared all Nationalist-held parliamentary seats vacant.
But Mintoff did not stop there. He has also refused to give the Nationalists access to Maltese radio and TV stations. When Mr. Fenech Adami made arrangements to broadcast from a TV station in nearby Sicily, Mintoff countered by pushing through a ”foreign interference act” banning broadcasts by Maltese citizens from outside the island.
The embargo on contacts between foreign diplomats and the Nationalist Party is seen as a further attempt to make political opposition impossible.
The United States ambassador to Malta, James Rentschler, has refused to accept the validity of the ban, arguing that it violates the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which grants civil and criminal immunity to foreign diplomats. Even the government of Libya, with which Mintoff has attempted to maintain good relations, joined in the protest.
Foreign diplomats in the capital city of Valletta argue that the ban isolates them from over half of Malta’s population of 320,000 people. Some have cancelled their National Day celebrations, claiming that Mintoff’s refusal to allow Nationalist Party supporters to attend would make nonsense of such events.
Observers in Valletta say Mintoff is under heavy pressure from senior Labor Party figures to make life as difficult as possible for Fenech Adami and his followers. They apparently fear that if the Nationalists are allowed to organize they will gain political support.
Foreign diplomats are said to be maintaining discreet contacts with Mintoff’s political opponents despite the ban. Diplomats report fear among the Nationalists that the prime minister is devising still more ways of preventing the opposition from operating effectively.
Mintoff, a fiery orator and skilled negotiator, was voted into office in 1971 and soon began attacking opposition newspapers. He was also accused of manipulating law courts on the island.
Malta’s strategic situation between Sicily and Libya has aroused Soviet interest. In 1979 Mintoff evicted the last British troops from Malta. Soon afterward Mintoff decided to allow Soviet commercial ships to stock large quantities of oil in what used to be NATO storage tanks near Valletta.
Malta is a tourist center for Europeans seeking winter sunshine, but more and more Mintoff has had to rely on grants from foreign governments to maintain the economy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/1983/0301/030148.html
Little has changed now that Joseph is 41 less a day or two.
Did you notice that while Simon Busuttil spoke against Islamaphobia, the prime minister did not express himself on this issue, and instead delegated this to the Deputy PM.
Perhaps he wants to ride on the current wave of Islamaphobia to gain a few more votes, given that people are, at the moment, emotional on the subject.
I wonder whether his paid advisor on Muslim issues in Castille ( I can’t remember his name) is the one advising him to stay quiet.