From Mr J. Schembri
Mr Buttigieg from Mellieha, conveniently, does not quote my article where I wrote: “Are we expecting people not to criticise the ideas of a learned person like Dr Sant, just because he is in bed convalescing? When I wrote the letter we had already heard the good news about his health. So where is the insensitivity? Did I harm Dr Sant’s health by my letter? I don’t feel I did. But if I did, I apologise.” (ToM, 15 January)
On 2 January I wrote in The Times of Malta: “I would like to wish Alfred Sant a speedy recovery. I may be one of those who may attack his ideas but never wished him any harm personally. Get well soon Dr Sant.” The censor from Mellieha also missed this.
On 7 January I wrote in The Times of Malta: “I never expected such insensitivity from a convalescent patient in hospital: The doctor with the DBA from Harvard did not take into account that there were people’s lives at stake.”
As the readers can check I never referred to Dr Sant as “an insensitive convalescent patient in hospital”, as Mr Buttigieg purposely misquoted me on your paper.
“One of your best columnists” does not mean “the best columnist”. My definition of a good columnist is someone who challenges readers’ ideas and one’s way of thinking. And it does not necessarily mean that I fully agree with what the columnist writes.
It’s like when I say that Dom Mintoff is a good orator, it does not mean that I agree with whatever he says in his speeches.
For example, on 30 October I wrote in your paper: “I like reading Daphne’s provocative articles, especially when they are short and to the point. My vote for this long tiring article is as the Italians say: “un bel zero adornato coi fiori.”
It seems that Charles J. Buttigieg has some sort of virus in his computer, which is very selective in finding quotations and when it finds them twists the words, so that they may be used against his victims. What shall we call it?
Dr Alfred Sant never answers hypothetical questions, but to his (self appointed) defender’s very hypothetical question about the Archbishop being attacked by Daphne, I quote Voltaire, who once wrote to one of his adversaries, “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” I also quote the outspoken critic of the Catholic Church Dario Fo who told La Repubblica: “I’m against any form of censorship because the right to free speech is sacred,” when he defended Pope Benedict’s right to speak at La Sapienza University.
The cherry on the cake was the censorship non sequitur: he declares that he firmly believes in the freedom of the press, but asks (when in government he would be demanding) the editor of this “reputable” (you would hear the opposite on Super One Radio) newspaper to “leave out” those who criticise Dr Sant.
When I criticised Daphne, I did not ask the editor to censor her. And in my letter, which appeared on the same date criticising Howard Hodgson about the “Cancer victim bitten by pit bull”, I did not demand his deportation.
The more I hear and read Malta’s so-called New Labour contributors about press freedom the more convinced I am that when in government they will do their utmost to censure their critics and opponents.
After all it was only “a few Labourite hotheads” who burnt The Times building when Labour was in government, and only recently “Labour representatives” tried to silence this newspaper and others from publishing articles against Dr Sant (I believe). I hope that Daphne gets hold of a press card before the next election, because without one she would again not be allowed to attend the “by default” Labour Prime Minister’s “press conferences”.
I fully concur with the spirit of Anthony R. Girard’s letter analysing one of Daphne’s many writings; there is no need to be spiteful to drive home your arguments, it would be very un-Christian and at the end will backfire at the writer’s “ideology”.
In her article “This is not the stuff of secrets” Ms Caruana Galizia, in her inimitable analytical style, gave the MLP the best advice they could get, from an expert opponent, for free.
When Dr Sant appeared in the press conference, before Bondiplus was aired, he did just what Daphne wrote; he was only late in doing it.
That is why I found Jason Micallef’s attack on Daphne unethical and uncalled for. Now I am getting more convinced that people like Jason and Mr Buttigieg don’t want us to question or criticise Dr Alfred Sant’s arguments, or his “off the cuff” policies. Old habits die hard, even in New Labour.
The public nowadays likes smart witty remarks rather than savage attacks depicting anyone who criticise their ideas, as “the notorious and the hate- monger gutter contributors”.
I fully agree with the gentleman from Sliema “this is not the way to do politics”, hatred only leads to more hatred, if someone “slips” all one has to do is apologise.
In the coming election political die-hards trying to silence their party’s opponents should not dominate the media. Today’s voters want to discuss issues that will affect their lives in the future.
Up to now, I, like many other voters, cannot find out what the renewed New Labour is up to. One cannot blame people like me for feeling confused when I am promised a “Pjan ghal-Bidu Gdid (Plan for a New Beginning)” by someone who promised the removal of VAT for which he had no real plan, who promises the electorate “feel good” measures and in the same breath tells us that the economy is not doing well, or is a member of the Party of the European Socialists while he labels anything that comes from the EU as another burden on the Maltese taxpayers.
A glaring example is when Dr Charles Mangion criticised Malta’s entry into the euro zone and some time later in the same conference, Martin Schultz, leader of the European Socialists, showered praise on Malta for entering the euro zone.
John Schembri
ZURRIEQ