Offence is exactly what he intended

Well, it would have been a first if Jason Azzopardi’s questions gave a Labour PS or minister an orgasm, wouldn’t it. With them, it’s generally a Super One ‘journalist’ or show hostess, or some over-groomed gay youth from a working-class background.

Ian Borg, the parliamentary secretary for EU Funds who answers to European Affairs/deputy prime minister Louis Grech, has ‘apologised’ for saying to Opposition MP Jason Azzopardi in parliament (and on Parliament TV): “Your questions don’t give me an orgasm.”

Azzopardi had challenged him over his delay in answering them.

Now he says that he meant no offence. Really? Offence is exactly what he meant. That’s why he said it: it was an insult.

Insults are meant to cause offence.

In fact, he has not apologised directly to Jason Azzopardi and hasn’t mentioned him at all, but just gave a general ‘apology to those who were offended’.

If he means that he meant to cause offence to Jason Azzopardi but not to all those others who heard or read his comment and got upset, that’s just as bad.

Ill-bred or badly brought up people find it literally impossible to apologise correctly. In their southern Mediterranean hamalli world view, apologising takes away some of their honour, rather than shoring it up, as it is seen in other cultures even within Malta.

So they either don’t apologise at all, or they qualify their apology. They never say “I’m sorry. I was wrong to do it.” Instead they say, “I’m sorry, but I didn’t mean it that way.” That’s not an apology. That’s an excuse.

Ian Borg shows that he doesn’t even understand it’s not the word itself that causes offence. Are there any people left outside a cloistered nunnery who are offended by the word ‘orgasm’? Of course not.

It’s the context in which he used it that’s offensive: in parliament, in response to a perfectly legitimate attempt by a representative of the people to find out information on behalf of electors who can’t do it themselves.

THAT is offensive.

The expression Ian Borg used is totally dated, used not by people his age – 29 – but men of around 60. It was ‘cool’ around 1974, and as generally happens with men of that generation, they think that what was cool and daring back then is still cool and daring four decades later.

As a result, I think of it as a totally fuddy-duddy thing to say, very Austin Powers gone wrong, not at all offensive. It’s the context in which he used it which shocks and offends.

It’s so rude, so wrong in parliament, and so very dismissive of the fact that the Opposition MP’s questions are questions put on the people’s behalf.