An interesting week, indeed

It was an interesting week, from a number of aspects. It started off with Spurs putting nine past Bir-id-Deheb Dingles, giving the North Londoners something of a delusion of grandeur. True, they might be within the group that follows Chelsea in the top four, meaning London will have three out of four, but one trusts that they won't start getting ideas above their station.

Naturally, the less said about the Scouse mob the better, given that they have started planning their season's end party already.

But on a serious note, another chapter in what was always going to be a sad passage for law and justice in the Republic has come to a close, though as at the time of writing, the sentence that was consequent on the finding of guilt was not yet known.

The received wisdom was that it would be a harsh one, though by the time you read this, it will be known, so speculation is useless.

I don't imagine much that I can write will add to the sum of human knowledge on the case and its fall-out.

Suffice it to say, perhaps, that the sorry affair proved, if nothing else, two things: firstly, we're all human and, in our heart of hearts, all of us have a small, leaden weight inscribed "there but for the Grace of God" and, secondly, the system works and, be you ever so mighty, the law catches up with you.

I'm not so naïve as to believe that the system works perfectly all the time, quite the contrary, in fact, but it worked this time and that means that it has the capacity to work all the time.

It is a given that whatever the length of sentence imposed by the court, there will be a plethora of comment and a multitude of people laying down the law. Many will fail to appreciate that it is the law that establishes the scale of punishment, though the presiding judge obviously has a degree of discretion.

In this context, it would be futile for Joe Bloggs to express the opinion that the crime deserved 50 years when the law only allows for a maximum of two months (to be inane about it) Mr Bloggs has every right to have his opinion but someone like me would then also have every right to point out to him that he's talking twaddle and has about the same grasp of the relevant facts as I have of the finer points of quantum physics.

This point of view, incidentally, can be extrapolated into many spheres of human activity and it's about time that it was understood that the fundamental importance of the right of freedom of expression does not translate into every opinion expressed having a fundamental value in and of itself.

In other words, a racist xenophobe fundamentalist might have the right to have his opinion but this does not translate into this opinion being of any value whatsoever or into a right to trumpet the opinion in breach of the law prohibiting the incitement to racial hatred. And it certainly does not mean that I can't call it the opinion of a racist thug.

While on the subject of opinions, which we were, am I the only one who found Prof. Dominic Fenech's views, as expressed in his interview in The Sunday Times a bit eyebrow raising? I know I'm not, of course, because the editorial of this paper last Wednesday made a couple of telling points, which need not be repeated here, other than to express wonderment at how so many people who were involved with Labour back in the day seem now to have managed to insulate themselves from what was going on then.

To read or listen to some of them, you'd think that they were in a different country altogether, describing events from a distance. Weird, when you think about it, considering many of them were at the heart of the darkness.

What also raised my eyebrow, both of them, in fact, were Prof. Fenech's remarks about censorship. He was full of admirably liberal sentiments about how everyone has the right to an opinion and about how the Labour Party should be at the vanguard of liberalism and the fight for freedom and all that.

Great stuff, more power to his elbow etc., etc., etc., but a small point deserves making: along with his fellow academics, Prof. Fenech does not appear to have been sufficiently moved by his rector's attempt to stifle freedom of expression actually to do something about it.

Fine words are all very well but that seems to be the sum of it. I suppose that's better than the deafening silence emanating from the others: Are they scared that their academic resources will be cut off by a hastily despatched University Beadle or something?

A few words about nourishment of mind and body, just to remind people that they can use this segment to call me a fat slob who should restrict himself to eating and drinking. We had a good meal at Tana del Lupo on Tuesday and it's recommendable, though I'd add the corollary that it would be prudent to cast an eye over the prices before pushing out the boat.

On Saturday, we had an enjoyable evening at the concert put on by the La Stella Philharmonic Society up north. Just thought I'd mention it, by way of acknowledgement.

imbocca@gmail.com, www.timesofmalta.com/blogs