Black Monday and other violent events (2)

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 30th 2009, 16:54

@Pschembri Do not advise me to read A Koster’s book when I have been quoting it extensively and correctly in The Times blog “Muscat’s apology “generic”" . I proved that Mintoff himself accepted the correctness of “Violence in certain cases, to be admissible” as the sixth of his “six points” so much so that he asked Lino Spiteri to write a series of six articles in l-Orizzont to explain to the MLP faithful his six points, one by one. If Lino Spiteri confirms this on page 94 of his book “Jien u Ghaddej fil-Politika” who are you to say that I am wrong?

P. Schembri

Oct 30th 2009, 12:09

@ Dr. Saliba. “Ghall-maghmul m’hemmx kunsens” sorry "kunsill".

“Violence in certain cases, to be admissible” . Here you're wrong. It was a representative of the Church who said this, when someone leaked the 6 points pointed out by the MLP in the 60's. It was interpreted thus which was untrue. Read Adrian Koster's "Prelates and Politicians in Malta". As the Church stood to lose, so it was invented "violence clause" which wasn't one of the points proposed by Mintoff.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 30th 2009, 09:07

@PSchembri.
As you said “Labour had everything to lose”, but at that time it did not realize that, in the long run, state-tolerated political violence would not create the envisaged intimidated and submissive "socialist generation". That miscalculation is the reason why the MLP has been ousted from governing practically continuously since 1987. That is why the present generation of PL is vociferously expressing “regrets for past mistakes” and wishing that that violence against the Church, the press, the free trade unions, the courts of justice and the PN party clubs “had never happened”. As we Maltese say “Ghall-maghmul m’hemmx kunsens”. It was the MLP that insisted on its right to “Violence in certain cases, to be admissible” and it was only the MLP that put that pretended “right” into practice for as long as it could do so. The MLP/PL is still paying the price for that institutionalized violence and it risks to continue to suffer the same fate as long as it does not unequivocally apologize for it and as long as it fails to persuade the electorate that it renounces that violent past and will not continue to welcome within its fold those who practiced it so assiduously!

G.Debono

Oct 30th 2009, 08:29

@P.Schembri
You cant call me a PN apologist cause I do not believe in MLPN, and I always will repeat its time to have a 3rd party in parliament and forming part of the government. That is the only way to reduce corruption and governments that last 25 years.

However to come to your question about who stood to gain with the violence of the 70s/80s. Well one could make parellels here with Zimbabwe and Robert (BOB) Mugabe. Who stands to gain from the state voilence on the opposition party there? Well the percieved (from Bob M) gain is on his side. But internationally and within the general people, he is loosing.

Who stood to gain in Malta. Well for the short term it was Labour of course, because of intimidation. The PN had little to gain by destroying the Curia, The Times of Malta, Mr. Fenech Adami's own house, their own PN clubs, killing (Nardu / Raymond / Others) people who would otherwise vote PN, total destruction and intent to kill PN supporters during their own meetings, send police force (who governs?) to hurt their own supporters.

Meta ser tiftah mohhok sur Schembri. Hallik min Mugabe and vote AD_next_time_round.

Muscat. Pat

Oct 29th 2009, 19:27

@ C Camilleri.
Dear Mr Camilleri, : "Malta zghira u in-nies maghrufa". The same people who disrupted MLP meetings were the same people who militated in the PN. Its not that the population of Malta counts millions of unknown! Malta was divided into two camps like in all civil commotions. No one is arguing that the MLP was not directly or indirectly responsible for Black Monday, but so was the PN responsible for the great black chasm and black moral and black religious blackmail ( psychological blackmail is worse) that split Catholic Malta into two tribes. We all know "min telgha fuq il-karru" we all know about the hidden hand that was very pleased with the result and indeed " gawdiet" hafna from that result. Otherwise, how come the MLP were elected as soon as the Church apologised in 1971? PN should apologize too if has Malta and not ( power) at heart!

P. Schembri

Oct 29th 2009, 19:00

@all PN apologists. Why don't you ask yourselves one question? Who stood to gain from these violent acts? Most importantly, who gained from these acts? If you can give an honest answer, it would be most welcome. Labour had everything to lose. So who was the agent provocateur of all these events?

c. camilleri

Oct 29th 2009, 17:23

@ Pat Muscat pls do not bring the two main parties on the same footings. The rampage, and atrocities committed by the labour party in the 70's and 80's were never committed by the Nationalist Party. So the latter has nothing to apologise for. Put this in your mind. Joseph has not asked for any apology. He only stated the obvious that those obscenities should never have occurred. Everybody agrees on this, the victims most of all. Every event is commemorated, the end of the last war, the holocaust of the Jews, the end of fascism and nazism, etc. If these events are forgotten there is a tendency that they will be repeated. Trying to believe as if they never happened will not erased them from the books of history.

Muscat. Pat

Oct 29th 2009, 15:50

People like Felice are playing with fire. Why? Because Malta is divided into tribes 50: 50 more less. Many Maltese like me have kids married to other kids with different political opinions. I have brothers and sisters and many hve parents who have different political opinions. So what should they do, play hard and each and every party sticks to his ground and speak venom to one another?. People like Felice Pace are behaving like the IRA and the UNIONIST did in Ireland before RECONCILIATION! I think that Mr Felice Pace was on the other side of the fence when Labourites were psychologically abused when moral blackmail was used against them; when a British delegation of the Labour Party were shot at Zurrieq, when Labourites were pelted with stones at a Mass meeting in Victoria. And yet, he suffers selective amnesia and never mentions these BLACK episodes. Why? Because he wants reconciliation or because he wants to keep the Maltese divided so that they will never see the real problems that Malta is presently facing. Joseph has apologized and so has the Church; its a pity that Felice Pace et al do not do the same!

Joseph Scicluna

Oct 29th 2009, 15:20

@ galea l.

siehbi bil ghatx sa tibqa tafx!!!!!!!

Kurt Mifsud

Oct 29th 2009, 14:59

What's happening lately everybody mentioning attacks of over 40 years old. Is this a way to deviate attention from the budget or from the increase in water and electricity bills? If you want to mention violence you can also call the present when Charlon Gouder was attacked lately.

laurence schembri

Oct 29th 2009, 14:02

Edward Torpiano out of hibernation.....let us tell him....Eddy!!! It`s 2009, the 21st Century.

Galea. L

Oct 29th 2009, 13:35

Victor Laiviera, Steve Rogers
Do you smell an early election through all this build-up or past events?

Victor Laiviera

Oct 29th 2009, 13:09

@ Steve Rogers

You are perfectly right - an open sore which can be activated whenever the PN needs a diversion (like from the Tonio Fenech Affair) is much more useful than a closed case.

Besides, when you start turning over stones, you never know what you will turn up. If the true story of the 70s and the 80s were ever written, people like Mr Torpiano would get some very unpleasant surprises.

Dr Francis Saliba

Oct 29th 2009, 12:44

@SteveRogers,
Knowing who the vandals were and being able to prove their guilt to the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" required by the Criminal Law are two very different hings. Especially so when dealing with a politicised police force that had acquired an unenviable reputation for framing innocent people, torturing detained persons, tampering with evidence it was their duty to preserve and opening fire and gassing innocent people.

Steve Rogers

Oct 29th 2009, 11:10

So in power since 1987 and this government was never able to apprehend anyone involved. Taken that more then one person was involved in these attacks in several different locations, there must have been several witnesses who saw someone. Given that Malta is so small that everyone knows each other it should not have been hard to find someone (especially since these mintoffiani were well known!). I think it suits this PN government to have martyrs rather then to seek out justice, all in the name of political mileage.