Rule No. 1 in public life: before you accept an invitation, think twice
It has become increasingly clear from this on-going saga about the magistrate and the politician that people in public life accept invitations without so much as half a thought about the significance of that acceptance.
It is clear, too, that the magistrate, who shouldn’t be inviting politicians and media people to parties, lunches and dinners at all, in her position, has – ever since she began to cohabit with Robert Musumeci – adopted a strategy of what I can best call ‘tactical hosting’ of key people in the media and in politics.
The strangest thing is that these people, none of whom can possibly be short of invitations to anything and everything – as I know through my own experience – leaped to accept rather than politely declining because of indisposition or a prior engagement.
It is amazing to me that they couldn’t see how they were being used to lend legitimacy to a relationship that is anything but: two cheats who ran off with each other, breaking up two families, rather than doing the decent thing, ending their marriages if they felt the need to do so, and looking for a new relationship after that.
Those are just the personal ethics, the morality bit, the bit where we try to do the decent thing and maintain some sort of standards.
Then there’s the more obvious bit. When a magistrate (who isn’t supposed to do this kind of thing, remember) and a politician entertain media people and other politicians who are not really their friends, more so in the intimacy of their home, it is because they want something from them, and not because they find their conversation thrilling or because they want an alternative to watching a DVD.
And that is why, before accepting any such invitation, potential guests have to ask themselves ‘What do these people want from me?’ and ‘Am I ready to give it to them?’
By accepting any such invitation, it is near cert that you will find yourself compromised at some point.
It is not just the magistrate and the politician who have compromised themselves by consorting with the people from Super One, various newspaper editors, and certain other politicians and magistrates/judges.
It is also their guests who have compromised themselves by accepting. This is becoming more obvious by the day.
Take the editor of The Times, for example (a man I respect and for whom I worked). It turns out that he accepted an invitation to dinner at the home of the magistrate and Robert Musumeci – not a large buffet, but an intimate thing round the dining-room table.
This makes it more difficult for him to adopt a clinical approach to investigating either of them when the need arises. Even if he succeeds in overcoming the inevitable crisis of conscience (‘I was a guest in your home and now I must go after you and examine whether you are up to no good’), public perception will be beset by question marks.
41 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lO–mqoZVE
Fast-forward to 1.39
While agreeing that people should think twice about which invitations to accept, should not journalists go when invited, as long as the freebie does not really affect them?
A magistrate should not host journalists to lunch, but if one is invited, unless one feels his position is compromised, I do not see a reason why one should decline.
[Daphne – There is the world of difference between a ‘freebie’, as you put it, and a personal invitation to the home of a magistrate or a politician. If you must lunch with a politician, make it snappy, business-like and in a restaurant where you can be seen by random others, so escaping the accusation of covert activity.]
I have a nagging million dollar question. Was Joseph Muscat, the new PL leader, ever at Consie’s parties? Is that why he never commented about this case publicly yet?
[Daphne – Yes, he is often Consuelo and Robert’s guest.]
Oh, so Joseph Muscat’s a guest of the magistrate and the politician, is he? No wonder he ducked and dived when asked how he’d vote in an impeachment motion.
Will he be a witness in your case?
There is no case. I am not Daphne.
Daphne,
I see your point here but maybe you are ommitting a clear alternative possibility. In my view, most people accepting the invitations did think about the two questions ‘What do these people want from me?’ and ‘Am I ready to give it to them?’ (except maybe the ones too desperate for a party). Not only that. They also asked themselves the question “What can I get from them?”
The way I see it, anyone who didn’t do that isn’t worth a farthing and should really consider getting out of public life.
As to the editor of the Times, I have no idea how close his friendly relationship is to any of the two. That is, if there is any relationship at all. But an intimate dinner clearly states otherwise.
That said, Lou Bondi did attend one of their “tactical” parties and he still appears to be able to clinically approach the subject without being bogged down by that fact.
Bottom line is, public perception of a political analyst/journalist/editor also takes into account his/her reputation and intellect. That’s why most people would still agree with what Lou and yourself are saying.
If you believe Lou Bondi approached the subject as thoroughly as any journalist worth his salt could have, I believe you must watch the 1hr comedy again.
It was nothing more than a skimming of the surface of all the issues and debates that may be raised in this particular case, in order to appear impartial and proper. The only good thing he did was starting by stating his bias – and he managed to over-act that bit too, melodramatically.
I agree whole-heartedly. Why was the programme (and guest ) so insipid and tame and then Lou’s answer to Mr. Vella’s e-mail so full of vitriol and so matter-of fact? I find myself perplexed as I have known Lou to be much more incisive his programmes.
I am very much with you on this matter but feel it would be better and more Christian to quit the judgmental comments. We do not know what led to the present situation between the two parties concerned, nor why they resorted to their subsequent actions.
[Daphne – I think we were all raised pretty much the same way. If you have a problem in your marriage, sort it out or get out. There is never an excuse for ‘doing a chimpanzee’: not letting go of one branch before you’ve firmly got hold of another.]
It is also not easy on third parties to cut off all contact with people one already knows in such situations; who are we to judge them?
[Daphne – This is not about judging but about correct behaviour. You cannot possibly have any idea of the tremendous amount of hurt and disruption caused in situations like this, when the betrayed parties and then betrayed over and above that by ‘friends’ who segue from dining with the wife/husband to dining with the mistress/lover. People have no sense of decency. A liberal attitude does not mean callous behaviour.]
Would we cut them off if they were our nearest and dearest?
[Daphne – My point exactly. They are not ‘nearest and dearest’, and if they are, then that’s a problem in itself.]
What should really be under scrutiny is the manipulation and their misuse of their ‘exalted’ position; as public figures they should have been more responsible in their behaviour and shown more respect to the public and to their stations in the execution of their duties. That, and other more serious allegations being made, I believe is the crux of the matter at the moment.
The behaviour you’d rather leave under wraps is intimately – literally – linked to the apparent “manipulation and their misuse of their ‘exalted’ position” .
I have a feeling a lot of people have started rejecting her invitations, thanks to you.
[Daphne – Why should it have taken a blog to point out the dubious morality of lending legitimacy to a couple of cheats? Their parties tend towards the sordid because the relationship itself is sordid. And that’s quite apart from being compromised by being unable to write about them if you accept their invitations.]
Well, I don’t think people who attend her parties care much about morality issues. If they did, how would they bear to be friends with her in the first place? If they are going to reject her invitations now, it will be for one reason only: fear of being shown up on this blog.
Daphne,
I too think that judges and magistrates are moving into dangerous territory when they have such an extensive social life. This gives people easy access to them with indecent proposals. We do not need another indecent proposal like those of Noel Arrigo and Patrick Vella. These so-called friends put these people in difficulty when it comes to reporting them to the authorities.
Just saw Fergie’s selection. Now I’m worried.
Madoffii santa! There’s Joseph Muscat on Dissett, and I can’t bear watching him, yet I would like to see Reno Bugeja corner him, as he is very good at doing with the guests on his programme.
He cornered him by asking him what his position would be (or something to that effect) should it come to taking a vote against Scerri Herrera’s impeachment.
“Inhallu f’idejn il-pulizija” …. “inhalli f’idejn il-pulizija” …. “inhalli f’idejn il-pulizija”. (Mela jrid li nergghu immorru lura ghaz-zmien meta kien ghadu bil-hrieqi?)
[Daphne – The police don’t get involved with ethics. They’re concerned with crime.]
And that was right after a video clip of him saying – more or less – that he’d interefere directly in the running of the law courts.
“He said the Labour Party was drafting proposals for inclusion in its programme on accountability in the law courts, while respecting the independence of the judiciary. On the Depasquale impeachment case, Dr Muscat said he would probably have voted differently from most Labour MPs.
When asked about the current controversy involving Magistrate Consuelo Scerri-Herrera, Dr Muscat said the Magistrate had done well to ask the police to investigate and one should now let the investigation take its course. Asked how he would act if this case ended up in an impeachment motion, Dr Muscat repeatedly insisted that the investigation should take its course, pointing out that there could be different agenda in the issue.”
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100223/local/muscat-does-not-see-divorce-being-on-pl-election-programme
It does seem that the now infamous party held by the magistrate and the politician was a truly double-standard one. A show-off, meaningless,’Arani Issa’ type of thing. Those poor invitees who succumbed – except for the probing ones, of course. The worst possible example for aspiring members of the judiciary and the political class.
It wasn’t the only one.
I just don’t understand the magistrate’s calculation in filing a criminal defamation suit against you.
Does she have to prove that you fabricated the story about being investigated by the legal commission? Or does she have to prove that you defamed her by revealing through your blog that her behaviour as a prominent person of the court in your opinion is callous?
Is the magistrate prepared to hear these things said about her in court? Does she really want to put people through this spectacle?
I sense an implosion. I hope common sense will prevail.
My God what a contrast … first Eddie’s biography and then Joseph Muscat on Dissett.
My thoughts exactly.
Mela Saviour Balzan sar ‘model’ issa? Tghid jithallas daqs Naomi Campbell?
I’m watching Dissett and I’ve just seen him on an advert for MyWyn.
Le, dak tkun irrangatlu l-ex girlfriend tieghu, li tiehu hsib il-marketing tal-agenti tal-My Wyn. Forsi tahseb li n-nies se jiffullaw ghal prodott ma jaraw il-Saviour Balzan juzah.
Anzi, nahseb li jitgerrxu minflok.
And he actually managed to smile.
That’s because he was paid.
Very good article. Some good people who were invited to the now infamous parties are against you, Daph, just because they attended these parties themselves.
Some people really come cheap. Send them a party invitation, and they’re yours.
Just watched Dissett…apparently, after tonight’s show, Reno Begeja’s thinking of changing its name to Dessert…
“Di pruf of di puddink iz in di eatink” <>
That’s what Alfred Sant said at his first press conference as Prime Minister.
Famous last words.
I thought that he looked very much like a pudding when he said it.
Saviour is now featuring in a wine advert! just saw it on TVM. Raoul Bova intefa jaghmel ir-riklami issa.
On the two programmes on TVM this evening:
a) Bijografiji – Eddie Fenech Adami. I enjoyed re-living historic moments that have shaped Malta’s recent history. Ithink that the moral of the programme is that when you have a clear vision and you work very hard at it you will succeed, as did Fenech Adami.
The thing that struck me most was a comment by Lino Spiteri about the 1996-8 Sant government. He said that he still cannot understand why in 1996 the Labour Party was voted in with an 8,000-vote majority and was kicked out 22 months later when the Nationalist Party got a majority of 10,000 votes. I thought that Lino Spiteri was a very perspicacious person. I could give him a thousand reasons why. I’m astonished the Labour Party was not voted out with an even larger majority.
b) Dissett – Joseph Muscat. The thing that bothered me most is that once again the Labour Party says that it is preparing its plans but whenever asked, the leader of the opposition tells us that it’s not yet time to reveal them.
At one point he said that we will only be told what Labour intends to do when in government once an election is called. I think this strategy is wrong and it has already proven erroneous in the past.
Two years ago the Labour Party came up with plenty of half-baked proposals as soon as the election was called and because they were not properly debated and probably also not properly formed they were counter-productive. My suggestion is for the Labour Party to start discussing its proposals and putting them forward for discussion. This will give them ample time to mature the proposals for a clear electoral manifesto which we can vote for. Joseph Muscat was extremely non-committal except for abortion and euthanasia.
Very good article. I agree fully with your comments on tactical hosting and on how journalists, politicians and decision-takers could compromise themselves by accepting invitations.
I wonder whether there was anyone from the MEPA or the NGOs who accepted similar invitations from them?
I have stopped buying my wine fromMyWyn since the model who promotes it has no appeal to me. I want to think of better things when drinking wine than Saviour Balzan. I don’t know whose brainchild it was to have such a being advertising wine. He puts people off big time.
I don’t agree with your political views, but on this I agree 100% with you! Yes, magistrates and judges should obey the code of ethics, u nippredendi li jaghtu ezempju tajjeb. Jafu ghallxiex dahlu! Daphne keep it up, forsi bis-sahha tieghek jinbidlu l-affarijiet!
@Hans,
Diga nbiddlu hafna affarijiet bis-sahha ta Daphne u il-political views taghha. Issa li hemm bzonn hu li meta jasal l-waqt li naghzlu minn se jmexxi il-pajjizna, taqbel maghha 100%.
“[J]udges ought to be guided by the principle that judicial duties come first and that nothing should be done or said which would even appear to compromise the independence and integrity of the individual judge, or of the courts as institutions.”
The Impartiality Paradox
Author(s): Melissa E. Loewenstern
Source: Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spring, 2003), pp. 501-525
Published by: Yale Law & Policy Review, Inc.
Daphne,
You may not wish to publish this, but I recall years ago seeing Consuelo on the BBC Antiques Roadshow (when one of the programmes was filmed in Malta). She was showing off the family furniture. It seems she always likes to be the centre of attention.
[Daphne – Funny you should mention that. We had a good laugh about it only yesterday. This was when an episode of the Antiques Roadshow was filmed in Malta. Consuelo hauled over to the shoot location a massive cabinet which, if I recall correctly, was valued at around Lm50,000. It was pretty obvious that she knew already what it was and how much it was worth, and that she had brought it onto the show only so that everyone else could see it too – without her having to invite them round to her home.]