Daphne’s “Mob rule, the tal-pepe way” (on Daphne Caruana Galizia’s blog) is dreadful. It smells of the gutter and it should have stayed there. Of course Ms Daphne Caruana Galizia is perfectly entitled to disagree profoundly with Ms Astrid Vella; but why such a vicious attack? Why lace the ink cartridge of the printer with vitriol? It is bad journalism, it is counterproductive and last but not least it is unworthy of her.

It is utter nonsense to imply that because not everybody (not even the vast silent majority to which Daphne admits she belongs) has ‘an opinion’ on this issue of the project for St John’s, therefore the views of the ‘few’ count for nothing; or therefore proposals made by the relevant authorities should not be frustrated by a mere Slimiza tal-pepe housewife even though she is a university graduate – nor presumably by all those who called for the project’s withdrawal.

I do not remember reading many public expressions of support for the project. Are we then to adopt the Swiss system and have a referendum on every major issue so that everyone can decide which way to jump before passing public judgement on a major project? Ask the women of Switzerland what that meant for them.

C’mon Daphne get real! Do we have to accept what is put before us as a fait accompli because we are not civil engineers – or (more to the point) journalists? Astrid and those who supported her (including Helen Tomkins nee Caruana Galizia who chooses to write under her maiden name as is her right – why the sneer Daphne?) and the FAA have every right to express an opinion and to start a movement or a campaign.

Those rights are enshrined in the constitution of Malta: everyone has the right to freedom of movement, freedom of expression and freedom of association. In this case Astrid Vella (Yes, an English graduate who married 30 years ago. Does that disqualify her from taking a public stand on this or any other issue?) mobilised a lot of people myself included and as well as organisations who felt that the project to put the tapestries underground was misguided and the proposed use of the cemetery of the fallen of 1565 (the bones are immaterial) inappropriate.

Nobody argued that the tapestries should not be re-housed. Quite the contrary: everyone agreed that rehousing them was highly urgent – but not like that. It is monstrous to assert that the project should have gone ahead because of the money that would have been spent on it. Astrid and the FAA mustered public opinion and on this occasion public opinion led by the FAA contributed to a famous victory. Do I detect sour grapes?

As one who publicly supported the FAA stand I must protest most strongly at the accusation of being a party to ‘mob rule’ of any description. People have called me many names but thus far I have never been described as a thug! Any ‘thuggery’ (verbal fortunately) is in fact entirely Daphne’s.

Since she has raised the point, were she to compile a list of those who expressed their disquiet with the proposal to put the tapestries undergound, she will find some who stuck their necks out during the late dark age when one of Malta’s less distinguished Foreign Ministers (who really should have known better) consigned ‘Maltese intellectuals’ to the deep freeze for an unspecified period of time – by which of course he meant that criticism of the ruling party was to be proscribed. I personally take grave exception to having the exercise of my constitutional rights interpreted as somehow similar to the infamous statement of KMB (not one of our most illustrious Prime Ministers but one who certainly knew better) about people power being superior to normal courts. What has happened since the thankful demise of that nasty regime is a joy and it is thanks to the party currently in power and those who supported it and its leader in those dreadful days of fear and uncertainty that freedom of speech, and freedom of association (inter alia) once more reign supreme. People are not systematically beaten up and victimised for their political beliefs nor are newspapers burned to the ground and journalists assaulted. Many fought against that tyranny (for such it was) and one of them was Astrid Vella: I remember her as a student activist during the battle for the university.

Astrid did her bit for freedom like many others high and low and in all walks of life. Is Daphne seriously saying that to criticise this project actually undermines the freedoms so many of us fought for? Such extravagant, insulting and disgraceful remarks do her no credit and are to be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Consider the modus operandi of the government today: has Astrid’s house been attacked by a howling mob of government supporters? It has not. Are editors of newspapers careful about printing what she and others submit for public consumption lest some idiot of a minister turns up with thugs to shown them who is boss? They are not.

It is to the credit of the Prime Minister that he took notice of public opinion on this important issue. If I had a hat I would take it off to him. It has all been dealt with in a civilised manner. In the final analysis had the project actually gone ahead, would there have been the mother of all demonstrations in Palace Square? Of course not.

This is what democracy is all about and what people like Astrid fought for. An issue like the tapestry project demands robust and informed debate. We can do without columns inspired by the gutter because we have come a long way from those depths and have no desire to return to them. I hope Daphne will put the discussion (if she wishes to pursue it) on a civilised level where it belongs – the precious tapestries deserve it.

Roger Vella Bonavita

Rossmoyne

Western Australia