The lead character in the sitcom Samantha Who? wakes up from a coma following a car accident to discover she has amnesia. This conveniently allows her to blame all her past bad behaviour on the nasty person she used to be, rather than the much nicer person she is now.

It seems this affliction has struck some of our parliamentarians who keep joining Facebook groups and then holding up their hands in feigned innocence: “who me?” The most recent Samantha is Franco Debono who claims he “cannot remember joining” the ‘no to divorce’ group.

Something similar happened when there was an ‘I hate Gonzi’ group, which was found to include among its members MP Luciano Busuttil who said he must have accepted the request without realising what the group was all about. Not quite a Samantha Who moment, but almost.

Now I can understand how the ordinary person may just casually join the thousands of groups which are formed daily. Sometimes you join innocuous sounding groups simply because it’s a private joke between you and your friends. After all, Facebook is not meant to be taken that seriously.

But a politician? An elected representative of the people who should be watching his or her every step? They, of all, people should know better. So my only conclusion is that politicians on Facebook are accepting every request to a join a group which is sent to them because they see in it the potential for more votes. The more groups you join the more new people you are likely to reach who may not already be in your social network of ‘friends’.

And if the group happens to be an anti-divorce lobby, but the politician keeps waffling about the issue, who cares, right? Much as conservative politicians are not my cup of tea, I actually prefer them to those who are wishy washy and never take a definite stand until they see which way the wind is blowing. “In principle I’m not in favour of divorce... but there’s an ongoing discussion and I intend to follow it,” Franco Debono was quoted as saying.

What’s that supposed to mean?

Does it mean that Nationalist MPs are waiting to see if this ‘no to divorce’ Facebook group gets enough members to indicate where public opinion lies? If so, they may be in for a surprise as some people are joining the group simply in order to be able to argue vociferously in favour of divorce.

Or is Franco Debono referring to the internal discussion within the PN, which began on Friday and which (to my immense relief) was “calm and civil”. Phew, for a moment there I thought they were going to take turns throwing rotten eggs at poor little Jeffrey.

Because yes, inevitably, yet another Facebook group has been formed saying ‘no to divorce, no to JPO’.

Maybe it’s the heat, but I’m not sure exactly what they mean by this either – are they planning to get enough members to force JPO to emigrate, perhaps to the Philippines where he can militate for divorce to his heart’s content? Or are they advocating for him to be a social outcast so that wherever he goes he finds huge billboards staring him in the face, telling him that “God doesn’t love JPO”, possibly sponsored by Pepsodent?

Teeny weeny

yellow polka dot bikini

A letter to the editor this week described the overreaction and near hysteria which was caused by the sight of a young woman wearing just a bikini and a smile at Balluta square. The scene of well-meaning but misguided matrons shouting at the hapless girl to put some clothes on sounded like something straight out of the Bible – the stoning of Mary Magdelene came immediately to mind. As I alternated between slapping my forehead with a groan and cracking the inevitable ‘hand me my burka’ jokes, it occurred to me that the conservative brigade is reacting like this because the rapid social changes in Malta are now out of their control. So they latch on to something specific which they can object to with all their might and, this week, it was the Balluta bikini girl.

It is true that we are still talking (and talking and talking) about whether divorce should be introduced, but in all other respects, Maltese society is almost unrecognizable compared to a mere 20 years ago. I think we often forget just how quickly the changes have come and how the social fabric has shifted right under our nose. It’s like the lid which was holding everything together in nice, tight little boxes of do’s and don’ts, shoulds and should nots, was blown right off and now, there’s no turning back.

Seen in this light I can almost empathise with the above-mentioned matrons, and why the sight of the Balluta bikini girl made them flip.

Single mothers, unknown fathers, gay rights, divorce, partners instead of spouses, naughty short stories, obscene plays – whatever happened to the Malta they knew and loved with its good old-fashioned sexual repression and seemly covering up of bosoms?

That Malta is fading fast, much to their chagrin, so one glimpse of this (well, there’s no other phrase) shameless hussy, was the last straw – what ever next? People blithely walking around in the nude as they do their shopping?

Apparently, the sight of just three tiny pieces of fabric covering all the unmentionables was all too much for the woman who started the whole ruckus, who seems to have finally been pushed too far in being made to accept a liberal, bikini tolerant Malta when all she wants is to go back to the nice, uptight, buttoned up Malta she grew up in.

Having said all this – we really need to be clear with tourists about what is allowed or not on our streets. If the law says that wearing swimwear is only permissible on the beach, and once you get on the street you have to cover up, then we really need to have signs informing people of this. Alternatively, if this only applies to urban areas like Valletta, but not to seaside towns like Balluta or Sliema, then we should really relax.

Either way the only decent way the above incident should have been handled was through a policeman who ideally would have had a quiet, polite word with the young lady.

I know we don’t do quiet and polite very well, but we had better start learning.

Bruno got away with it

I finally got round to watching Bruno on DVD. Some of it was very funny; other parts were just sick and distasteful. Sacha Baron Cohen’s brand of over the top satire has no limits so you know what to expect, although from what I’ve read about how the film was received around the world, the general consensus was that even he went too far this time.

Of course, there is a method behind the outrageous madness as Cohen, playing a very camp gay fashion journalist, brilliantly exposes the ignorance of middle America and the lengths to which people will go to achieve celebrity status.

This film was also shown at our cinemas last year, and I’m still trying to find out how much of it was edited out for it to have got past the Board of Film and Stage Classification.

I’m also trying to imagine members of the Board watching the film; I find this image even funnier than the movie.

I was told it was rated 18, so I’m presuming quite a bit of the original movie was left in – and in any case if they really had to chop out all the vulgar, pornographic, obscene and offensive scenes, the film would only be about half an hour long.

My point is that for this film to have been screened at our cinemas, it was given a thumbs up, presumably by the very same people who have banned Stitching simply by reading the script. I would think that the number of people who go to the cinema to watch a mainstream film is far greater than those who are interested in a certain kind of alternative theatre.

I’ve been trying to figure out why Stitching is unsuitable for Maltese audiences but Bruno is OK, but try as I might I can’t. Someone suggested to me that perhaps it’s because one is practically a slapstick comedy while the other is serious drama, which doesn’t make any logical sense to me either.

So if anyone would like to explain the reason for this anomaly, I’m all ears.

[email protected]