It seems as though Stephen Calleja has enlisted somebody else to defend him, namely, Antoine Vella (“Public consultations”, TMIS, 25 April), possibly because he did not feel up to defending himself against another round of well-earned criticism.

Sadly, Mr Vella did not quite rise to the occasion and one can drive a double-decker bus through his weak defence. Believe it or not, Mr Vella obliged by starting with yet another prize boo-boo to illustrate his point! Mr Vella’s splendid boo-boo pontificates as follows: “A consultation process should never be judged subjectively because this implies that no other opinions were voiced.” This is the quintessence of empty wishy-washy argumentation. First of all, it is impossible to make a ‘judgement’ on a consultation process that never took place. Secondly, judging a consultation (or whatever) “subjectively” merely means agreement or disagreement with its contents, outcome or the way it was conducted irrespective of whether or not other opinions were expressed; surely, this is something to which everybody is entitled in a land of free speech? Thirdly, and most important of all, to say that there was no consultation was a statement of fact and not a ‘judgement’.

In any case, Mr Vella merely beats ineffectively about the bush in his letter and does not address the central issue, namely, whether or not there was public consultation. There was no “period of time in which everyone was allowed to express his or her views”. Little or nothing was really known about the project until it was sprung on the public on 27 June. Furthermore, to say that Stephen Calleja was ‘very right’ in saying “if the government takes a decision that is not consonant with your opinion it does not mean that there was no public consultation” is a repetition of something that was already shown to be equally meaningless and empty because it didn’t prove anything.

As to the question of FAA being “hardly able to call Michael Briguglio a PN sycophant” and finding themselves “flabbergasted and speechless” – this comment is a no-brainer. FAA wasn’t speechless at all! View comments from FAA members on the times blog (The City Gate spectacle, 16 April) for an answer. Enough said.

Please note also, Mr Vella, that FAA does not trade insults like Mr Calleja does. FAA would never descend to the level of trying to score points by calling people names or trying to defame them. As to the “Stalin or Ceausescu” accusation – you are wrong yet again, Mr Vella. In point of fact, somebody may have, at some point, possibly in a blog, declared the design of the new parliament building as ‘reminiscent of some Stalin or Ceausescu-era architectural monument’. This, you have to agree, is perfectly acceptable aesthetic criticism (or even ‘judgement’ if you wish) and quite a different matter to comparing our Prime Minister to either of those despicable gentlemen.

On the other hand, Stephen Calleja has repeatedly flaunted his personal antipathy toward Flimkien ghal-Ambjent Ahjar (FAA) and, in particular, Astrid Vella by means of insults. Mr Calleja’s particular brand of vitriol reached its apotheosis in his insult-infested article “Where’s the halo, Astrid?” (19 July 2009). Mr Calleja also uses choice insults for anybody in the general public who dares to express an opinion, calling them ‘Maltese know-alls’, ‘hoi-polloi’, ‘whingers’, ‘self-appointed experts’, and so on.

It is also interesting to note that Stephen Calleja’s taunts pre-date FAA’s entry into the controversy. As early as July 2000 when, for some odd reason, Mr Calleja seemed already to be spoiling for a fight, he speculated sarcastically why FAA hadn’t said anything and then, at a loss for something nasty to say, followed this by the banal remark that Ms Vella was “keeping her mouth shut when she is in agreement” (well why not?). This was followed later by an all-out attempt to bully Ms Vella and others into silence by intimidation. Instead of debate and logic, Stephen Calleja resorted to character assassination, defamation and smear campaigns with no holds barred. The most explicit of these was his delving into peoples’ private affairs (made to sound respectable by calling it “research”) with the sole object of publicly undermining them.

Gratuitous insults and attempts at defamation, as repeatedly used by Mr Calleja to try to silence his critics, are regarded as the equivalent of verbal violence. This is certainly not the stuff of civilized debate. Mr Calleja must understand that it is not only the preserve of self-styled journalists or columnists to express opinions in public, but also of the public whom he arrogantly calls ‘hoi-polloi’, ‘whingers’, ‘self-appointed experts’, and so on.

G. G Debono

SLIEMA