Judging from the way Mr. David Agius, the Nationalist Party Whip replied to my blog on “Vilification and the Nationalist Party”, it clearly transpires that he, with the rest of his Parliamentary Group, lack knowledge of our parliamentary procedures and want to take Catholic voters for a ride.

Agius stressed that the Nationalist Party did indeed put up stiff opposition to the removal of the clauses on vilification in parliament. To prove his point, he mentions the way his Party voted at committee stage. He then admitted that on the third reading the NP did not ask for a division on the grounds that the bill had other clauses with which the party agreed i.e. revenge porn. Moreover, Agius explained that at the stage of the third reading, ‘a vote is taken on the Bill as a whole.’

I share the views of a number of genuine voters who replied to Agius’ letter published on the Malta Independent’s portal. Clearly from Agius’ reply, issues related to sexuality are today more important to the Nationalist Party than issues of Faith. Why does Agius and the rest of the Nationalist Group sit in the front pews of our churches and participate in Catholic festivals when they think that mocking the Catholic faith is in essence less important than revenge porn?

In his reply, Agius did not mention the fact that there were members within the Government faction who were against the abolition of vilification. Whenever, there are members of the Government not toeing the Government line, it is the duty of the Opposition to start asking for votes, on each and every reading. But, clearly supporting revenge porn, the removal of any reference to Roman Catholicism, allowing sex shops and brothels, has now become more important for the Opposition than checking whether Government has a full majority when passing a bill.

Nevertheless, Agius' reply shows that he does not even know parliamentary procedures. This is extremely serious. Normally, the Maltese Parliament follows Westminster and Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.

But, before continuing exposing the deceitfulness of the Nationalist Party on this issue, let me first remind Agius how his party voted in this instance. In the second reading of the amendment of Bill 113 of Criminal Code, during Sitting 382 of 27.4.2016, no division was taken. Therefore, as a whip, he did not ask for a division even at the second stage of the reading. May I ask why?  But please spare me this time round the reply that ‘voting no at this stage implies that the party is voting against the entire bill’ because there was still another vote to be taken before the bill is finally approved by parliament. The same happened in the third Sitting 416 of 12.7.2016. The bill was passed without a division.

Agius accused me of ignorance of Parliamentary procedure. Can Agius give me the chapter, paragraph and line where it is stated that the Opposition cannot request an itemized vote in a second or third reading? In reality there is no provision. The truth is that itemized votes can indeed be taken in the second or third reading. All the Whip had to do was ask the Speaker of the House for a separate vote on vilification. This would not have implied in any way that the Opposition was against ‘the entire Bill’. The onus would have rested on the Speaker to decide whether this was possible or not. But the reality is that David Agius chose not do this because he knew perfectly well that the Speaker was bound by parliamentary rules to allow a vote on itemized clauses both in the second and third reading.

I am shocked that Agius and the rest of the Nationalist Parliamentary group lack such basic knowledge. I am not going into Erskine May or ask the Speaker’s opinion on this matter to prove my point. Instead, I wish to remind the Opposition about what happened during Alfred Sant’s tenure. Back then, the Nationalist Party in Opposition backed Mintoff and began asking for itemized voting at plenary sessions.

Edmund Burke, the philosopher who today is inspiring the Conservative Parties, once wrote that “those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.” On the basis of this, the Nationalists are doomed to remain in Opposition. How can a party win an election when its Whip feigns to know parliamentary procedures? How can a party which pretends that it does not know how parliamentary procedure works expect the people to vote it in government? And finally how can a party that does not know the country’s parliamentary rules expect to govern a country?

In conclusion, I agree perfectly with Mr. David Agius on one point; “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. Misleading the man in the street in this heinous manner, through lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure, is a threat to our democracy.