Tappabuchi? Sort of a suppository?

Franco Debono is not “having his say”. He’s just posting comments on this website, where Joseph Muscat won’t read them.

It’s in the prime minister’s and the Law Commission’s offices that he needs to have his say. But, as usual, he needs to suck up to this government. This time he is torn between loyalty to Joseph Muscat, and his own massive ego. So he tells us how he is opposed to this one line in the entire draft law (not the whole law, mind) because he himself proposed such and such five years ago, while he gives his consent in public.

This is serious. And yes, I’m bullying this man. He has no recommendations at all. That’s the long and the short of it.

What are you on?

Are we not missing the point here? Just let Debono have his say and be done with it. Turning him into everyone’s favourite punchbag on this blog is hardly dignified, and can sometimes make us miss crucial information.

Look, the law is an ass. All the Nationalist Party’s lawyers/politicians who were themselves subject to legal procedural niceties in the 80s failed to properly address the issues, leaving these same tools to the current lot.

Instead of just dumping on Debono, should we not be listening to what is being said and ensuring that when the Nationalists get in they make the necessary changes, instead of boiler-plating quick fixes?

I am not a lawyer so I have no idea what Debono’s recommendations/reforms would suggest. I understand that at points they are an even worse threat to freedom of expression – but even then I would find them useful in deciding where not to go.

But this is a very serious matter and we need to have serious discussions and solutions. Verbal bullying is not the way forward.

Baxxter is always ahead of the average (and most often, the above average) Joe.

The threat to freedom of speech is one of them. Labour is proposing this legislation only to mitigate the damage that Cardona’s garnishee order wrought on the Labour Party, in the hope that not many people will attend next Sunday.

Labour has no intention of enacting any law that would reduce the possibility to silence a journalist. Note how they spoke about the need for a proper debate about the issue, which is as good as saying that there is no way it will become law before the next elections. If God forbid, Labour gets elected again in 2018, they will quickly forget about it.

The Attorney General would be accepting an unconstitutional clause if that is accepted. By the same token if some action is rendered illegal by the enacting of a law no one by be prosecuted retroactively for such an action.

You’re such a dumbass.