I am beginning to despair of my own sector, the media.

I listened to Parliament's rowdy sitting on Tuesday and such was the noise that I, and those listening with me, could not make head or tail what was going on. The next day, I read all accounts on all the papers, many of which had their people inside the Chamber and I still could not understand what had happened. A democracy without credible media is a weak democracy.

Is it so difficult to write a coherent summary of what went on?

As we all know by now, Tuesday's and Wednesday's sittings were characterized by extreme rowdiness which made it hard going for the Deputy Speaker, Claudette Buttigieg, (who somehow seems to get all the tense and rowdy sittings).

Chris Cardona was the protagonist of Tuesday's sitting, thanks to an article in La Repubblica and, again, had to face an onslaught of innuendo and speculation. He lost his cool and, having promised the media he would be replying in the House, launched into a rambling defence of sorts which may not have convinced even his own supporters.

Simon Busuttil was the protagonist of Wednesday's sitting. He showed uncommon spunk and stated he is still not convinced by the Egrant inquiry conclusion. His short speech was drowned in a barrage of shouting, calls for order and points of order.

This is the level to which Parliament has deteriorated. It should be the last refuge of free speech and all its institutions should be geared to ensure free speech but this is patently impossible when members use Standing Orders to block free speech.

Busuttil has every right to his opinion, whatever one thinks of it. He never said his opinion is that of the Opposition but it was very right for his Leader to defend his right to free speech.

I note, though this is an aside, that the same Leader of the Opposition did not intervene in the very public spat between his wife and his assistant, not even when the latter passed very uncomplimentary remarks, which should have never been made. But then the whole issue should have never happened in public.

This then is the week when we commemorate one year since Daphne's assassination and no closure has been reached, nor does it look possible.

Whoever ordered her killing may have sought to silence her voice but instead the absence of that voice has spawned a thousand critical voices. They may not have her range of intelligence, nor her human limitations, but they have spunk and inventiveness that time and again surprises and outpaces the staid and often flaccid official Opposition.

Once the anniversary celebrations are over, the galaxy of activists, all with a different name should try to come together and form an official splinter group inside or outside the Opposition. It should offer the electorate an alternative platform, come May's EP election.

It should broaden out from merely commemorating Daphne to offer a wider programme. It has one big advantage - most of its principal movers do not have baggage to defend, and those who have must move to dispose all this baggage in all humility.

And above all, it must be less elitist and far more inclusive than it has been to date. Unfortunately, it has preserved one of Daphne's less meritorious aspects.

 

[email protected]