Carl Grech is the president of KSU - the largest student organisation on campus. He is also a fourth-year law student. And Grech is concerned about fictional characters breaking the law. That's right. He was recently approached and asked to comment about 'Li Tkisser Sewwi'. Mr president referred to an extract from the story where the fictional 35-year old narrator boasts about his sexual escapades with 16-year-olds. This seems to have perturbed the student leader, who said it remains to be seen whether this portrayal breaches Maltese laws.

Well, what can I say except that, if University students cannot distinguish between fiction and fact, we're in for a tough time (though Grech can always become a politician and continue blurring fiction and fact).

The KSU president might also wish to round up all the authors of crime fiction and have them prosecuted for writing about nasty people doing nasty things to others. It would also probably contribute greatly to his peace of mind if the courts had to pronounce themselves on whether the tales of Hansel and Gretel, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves and Rapunzel breached any of our laws. Because child abduction, attempted murder and kidnapping are all described in these tales.

I know these suggestions sound ridiculous, but this is what you get when students who seem to be incapable of making rational arguments are asked to take a stand on pertinent issues. Back when the whole ban issue had first erupted on campus, Grech refused to read the story, because (he said) "whatever I say makes no difference". Now he's getting all het up because fictitious criminals are committing fictitious crimes and authors are writing about them. Going to a library or a book store must be a terribly traumatic experience for him.

The news report about the green grocer who ended up being blackmailed by three of his customers, has got tongues wagging. Admittedly, the whole saga does contain some farcical elements. There's the woman who ran up a €600 bill for vegetables, prompting someone to comment about the phenomenal rise in the cost of living.

Then there was her offer to pay off the debt in kind - an offer which the 60-year old vegetable vendor accepted. Unfortunately (for him) the minestra-mad woman didn't find the sex-for-veg barter deal to be good enough value - even though she had proposed it herself. She allegedly roped in her daughter and sister to snap photos of the hapless green grocer as he lay on the bed in his birthday suit waiting for his 'payment'.

With the incriminating shots in hand, the trio proceeded to blackmail the man with exposure. He claims that they managed to wring some €15,300 out of him and were sniffing around for more, before he finally snapped and reported the matter to the police. When the women were arraigned, the court ordered a ban on the publication of the man's name. Presumably, this was done to spare him further embarrassment. After all, he was the victim in this criminal farce and there is no need for public humiliation.

However, the ban did not have the desired effect of concealing his identity, as the papers reported his age, his place of residence and where he sets up shop. These details narrow down the field considerably. It's not as if there were hundreds of vegetable vendors of pensionable age plying their trade in that area. Which means that there has to be a rethink of the way these kind of incidents are reported, so as not to render court bans ineffectual and expose the identity of victims of crime.

In the past few weeks, there's been a lot of tut-tutting about using religion as a get-out-of-jail-free card. Strangely enough, there were far fewer raised eyebrows when the charity card was used by one of our politicians yet again. Following the example of Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, who had strutted up to the altar and made a donation to the Mosta church after Mass, Parliamentary Secretary Jason Azzopardi did his own little bit of alms-giving.

Except that that his donation wasn't so little, consisting of a €50,000 cheque from the Good Causes Fund, and it wasn't done in a discrete or private manner. Not for our Jason was the equally effective but less visible expedient of sending the donation to its recipient by popping the cheque in an envelope and dropping it in the nearest mailbag. No, that would be a missed opportunity for favourable publicity.

The Parliamentary Secretary chose to trot up to the altar and hand over the cheque to the parish priest, to the bewilderment of those present.

I can understand their surprise and distaste at this sort of spectacle. It's not the fact that that particular parish was chosen as a recipient for the funds, which is objectionable. The money was needed for the restoration of the church, which is as good a reason as any to have the parish qualify to receive them from the Good Causes Fund. It is the manner in which the donation was made that I find utterly crass.

Why opt for this show of magnanimity in a place of worship? Why does the congregation have to put up with politicians parading the government's munificence in church? Will this prancing up to the pulpit, waving cheques about, become a regular occurrence? If any political mileage is to be had from handing over cheques to deserving recipients, politicians should have the decency to do it in a more appropriate forum.

In the meantime, if they're passing through a particularly religious stint, they should read Matthew: 1-4, which states: "When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others."

cl.bon@nextgen.net.mt