Politics has its fair amount of dirt, but usually the soiled linen is kept in the laundry basket away from the public eye. However, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando has just uncovered some muck within his party.

He refused to attend an Independence Day celebration, mass meeting on Tuesday when he discovered that Charles Mangion (iz-Zubina) was involved as a helper in the festivities, which JPO found “highly inappropriate”.

Mr Mangion was recently fined and given a six-month jail term suspended for 18 months for threatening to harm JPO and others involved in the pro divorce movement. However, that is just a recent court sentence. Mr Mangion has quite a violent past.

Nevertheless, he has hopefully paid his dues and everyone should be given a chance to rejoin society. But, his recent antics should certainly have precluded him from being seen as part of the PN ‘family’.

Now we know that the PN hierarchy were dead set against introducing divorce. However, they surely do not want to be seen hobnobbing with someone who threatened to harm the people campaigning for it. It might give people, susceptible to speculation and conspiracy theories, ideas.

We all know that, historically, thuggery was present in both parties. And please let’s not have “they started it”. We should have moved on since those troubled times and politicians and pillars of the establishment should not need criminals and thugs to protect them.

It is completely unacceptable that men who have been charged (or been connected) with violence are seen to be part of any political party.

I don’t always have time for Jeffrey’s antics, but, even if he is again acting to draw attention to himself, the point he made is correct. He was right about divorce and he is right that people who engage in violent behaviour should not be embraced within political parties.

Mr Mangion should not have been part, however lowly or minor his participation, of the party’s rally. And before you start thinking that dirty linen is limited to the PN, think again.

Both parties, in different stages of our history, are to blame for the dreadful polarisation that we are living through. I just hope that the people commenting online on the JPO latest story are in the minority. If not, God help us because our society is stagnating badly.

Now, for those of you unfamiliar with local politics, the Independence Day celebrations are seen as the preserve of the Nationalist Party and speeches given at the mass meetings promote the re-election of that party.

For example, Austin Gatt bombastically announced: “The people will trust us again, one election after another for at least another 20 years.” I am not affiliated to any political party and as an independent person I feel that the Independence Day celebrations should be enjoyed by the whole Maltese population and not be used as a stage for political party rallying.

After all, George Borg Olivier (Prime Minister and leader of the PN at the time) achieved independence for the whole country on 21 September 1964, and not just the Maltese people affiliated to the Nationalist Party. Neither did Dom Mintoff (when he again became Prime Minister) declare Malta a republic within the Commonwealth, with the President as Head of State, on 13 December 1974, for just the Labour Party faction of the country.

We are one country and both Independence and Republic Days should be celebrated by all and not be exploited by political parties to foment division with mass rallies.

More on dirty linen

The political parties are not the only ones that have to face the music when their attempts to hide their mucky laundry are exposed. The Church is still reeling over the child abuse cases and is now trying to get out of paying any financial reparation to the victims, thereby prolonging the saga.

The civil courts will now have to decide whether the Church, as an institution, is responsible for financially compensating the victims for the abuse they suffered by priests who formed part of her pastoral and spiritual ministry.

The Curia announced on Thursday that the Church, as an institution, bore no legal responsibility for the crimes of abuse − and therefore will not pay financial compensation.

It said that its legal advice was that as an institution it did not have any responsibility for what was perpetrated by some individuals and therefore cannot take upon herself such responsibility.

This is rather like Rupert Murdoch trying to distance himself from the phone hacking scandal and stating, “I know nothing” like Manuel in Fawlty Towers. Any institution is responsible for the behaviour of individuals working in its name and the attempt to cover up what was going on has been widely aired.

In answer to theologian Fr Rene Camilleri, yes, the Church had assumed responsibility, moral or otherwise, by apologising and by offering psychiatric, psychological and social help to any individuals who proved to be victims of its pastoral functionaries, “as part of her pastoral and spiritual ministry” and is therefore responsible to pay out compensation.

Of course the crux concerning the Church, as Fr Camilleri pointed out, is that it has to keep in mind that “once it accepted the principle of compensating victims, then victims of any form of abuse will come forward for compensation”. Which begs the question: How worried is the Church of even more abuse cases coming to light?

[email protected]