The dangers of getting personal in opinion columns

I find the accusations made by Joe Micallef against Astrid Vella (February 13), titled FAA: Fundamentally Against All, to be totally unfounded.

I came to learn about the FAA when this organisation first brought to public attention the proposals which the St John's Foundation had just submitted to Mepa.

This was about a year ago, now. Since then, through the numerous letters, articles and reports that were published in The Times, an intense and often passionate debate ensued. This was expected because St John's is the epicentre of our national identity, of the values we uphold as a nation, and of the strength we owe to our heritage. Those of us who participated in this debate hailed from all walks of life and from as far away as Australia and Canada.

Throughout the debate, the temptation to lose sight of the issue and of its potential repercussions, and instead become personal in what we expressed, was always present. From time to time, some, myself included, showed a propensity to criticise the person rather than solely addressing and dealing with the matter, as a civilised debate would demand.

In this instance, however, Mr Micallef has, in my view, well and truly exceeded the threshold of what one could regard as pardonable.

With the exception of the second paragraph, the author is unrelenting in his criticism and accusations against Ms Vella. We are told, for example, that Ms Vella "elevates" herself as a "sole" protector of our national heritage.

This accusation defies the fact that only recently Ms Vella received recognition and was awarded a special prize by the Fédération Francaise du Bénévolat et de la Vie Associative (FFBA) for her significant contributions to the environment and voluntary work in Malta. Mr Micallef also repeatedly insists that Ms Vella's approach to defending Malta's heritage and environment is "fundamentalist". This is clearly both unfair and disparaging, and amounts to unwarranted acrimony towards Ms Vella.

The descriptive has very serious negative connotations, and does injustice to Ms Vella. The truth is that Ms Vella was showing diplomatic courage when this was needed most. It was only through the FAA that the public became aware of the high level of risk that the co-Cathedral was being put into as a result of the proposals and of the historical notoriety of EIAs.

A genuine democracy and civility require that our arguments centre on the essence of the issue and not on the person who opposes our point of view. At all times, what we express must be constructed from materials taken directly from, and pertaining solely to, the issue on hand.

This, at times, could be hard to do especially when we first need to go through the various layers of information before we can complete our construction.

Not being able to do what is hard can lead us instead to do what is easy but very dangerous. Degenerating into hurling accusations and injurious labels against those who oppose our stance amounts to intimidation which is utterly unacceptable in any free-thinking society.