Roamer's Column

For that is how he was referred to in conversation between friends. I do not intend to repeat the glowing appreciations written or uttered by those who knew him far better than I did; certainty is that each was honestly crafted. Id-Dupuis had much going for him as a person, a footballer and a politician-rising-to-minister. That is not quite correct; he made things go for him and did so with an impressive, bubbling enthusiasm.

Politically he will best be remembered for the way he ran the finance portfolio entrusted to him in 1987 after 16 years of socialist rule. Much is being claimed for that period of Old Labour by New Labour; not, I hasten to add, the democratic credentials that had been menaced; nor the querulous relationships with western European countries Malta so cavalierly fractured during that period; nor the massive centralisation of power and the up-down control of the economy; nor the spread of State-controlled enterprises, from banking to manufacture to broadcasting; nor the wisdom that led to the suspension of the Constitutional Court for three years; nor a few other things.

Id-Dupuis' job was to bring sanity back to commerce, industry and the banking sector and there he was, at the start of the long haul, bravely bringing down the top rate of income tax from 60 per cent plus to 35 per cent and cleverly plugging corporate tax at the same level as personal income tax. There he was, dismantling a hundred-and-one State-losing enterprises, enjoying himself hugely. There he was, impish smile and all, creating a financial centre out of nothing, setting up a stock exchange - both anathema to the socialist regime, turning round a stagnant economy.

History may not, however, shed light on a detail of his performance in the House, when, spectacles perilously perched, a trifle parched by the demands of his budget speech, he would reach out - for a mug. Why so, I mused? As I watched, I harboured a strong suspicion, which I expressed at the time, that the tipple he was evidently enjoying was not cold tea as he would have Parliament and viewers believe; nor water. The contents therein, or so I concluded, were laced with whisky. Good for him, I thought, only spirit can lift tediousness.

As he looks down upon today's tedious protest I bet he is thinking, what else is new? Indeed; and quite.

Porn's pawns and child protection

A psychotherapist once labelled pornography as the "crack cocaine of the internet". Many search for it for kicks, as an experience without which life would be duller. They end up addicted to a phenomenon now available in nearly every home. We are all potential pawns in the sordid game of pornography; in the same way that we are potential victims of drug addiction if we just but try.

Given the law of diminishing returns on sex - and on so much else - given the manic and intensive media promotion of a sexually immoral environment, adult pornography provides a Siren call for those who gauge that there is more to sex than sex provides. Once this stage is reached, some are prompted to descend some slippery slopes, even to the hell of child pornography.

As with most inventions that can be, and are, a power for good, the internet has by its very nature paved a way for its antithesis - unadulterated evil. Internet porn is a destructive force that contributes yet another weapon in the arsenal already available to the assault on the dignity of human sexuality and on marriage. The effects of internet downloads of pornographic material are being carefully, and from what I can gather, accurately researched. Those who visit a site out of curiosity run the risk of getting hooked and, like their amphibious counterparts in similar straits, are often powerless to struggle free.

Many end up voyeurs of what a sex psychotherapist described as their "secret world". Gradually, they cut themselves from real life, from family and are increasingly frustrated by an illusory reality that imprisons them in a world without emotions. "It numbs you in the same way that a drug numbs you." Nor do position, upbringing, profession, education guarantee you any immunity to pornography's effects. The guy who claims any such exemption is well on the way to addiction and not far from the road to another.

It is well documented that indulgence in adult pornography can be a mere stone's throw away from the sexual exploitation of children and some, at worst, even become pimps using adult porn to instruct child prostitutes; no circle this side of hell is more degenerate.

A child walking into an "adult bookshop" is protected by law and shown the door. For some time now, that child need not step out of his parent's house where, unless his parents are watchful and alert (some store porn material in their home), he can click into a website that distributes adult pornography - without paying a cent or having to pass through a no longer sleazy doorway.

Societies all over the world, ours included, are up against a multi-million dollar industry. It is clear that those who have the power to take on this industry have an enormous vested interest in declaring war on this form of moral terrorism. Pope Benedict XV1 got it right last April when he addressed American bishops in the United States and asked: "What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through the media widely available today?"

How ironic that the womb and the home, once considered safe sanctuaries in which families are born and grow, have become dangerous places; legally disposable in the case of the child in the womb, in danger of being stunted by dint of laissez faire in the case of the latter.

Hot stuff

Environmentalists in the US, perhaps elsewhere too, are known as "watermelons", green on the outside but bright pink, close to red, underneath; the pinkest belong to the climate change species. Writing in the Catholic Herald three or four weeks ago, the historian, a long, long time ago editor of the New Statesman, Paul Johnson, described the Save the Planet movement as 'a form of pantheism.' The Climategate scandal, you will recall and if you have forgotten I will remind you, was all about some 1,000 e-mails hacked from the computers of scientists in the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University. These showed "serious scientific malfeasance - the fabrication, corruption, destruction, hiding and cherry-picking of data" as well as "intimidation of dissenting scientists and journal editors..." Since the scandal broke, the head of CRU Phil Jones, has admitted that the earth may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Did anybody say human carbon footprint?

As world leaders contemplated the end of the world in Copenhagen, last December, none was the least bit fazed by Climategate; not even after Russia's Institute of Economic analysis accused Britain's Meteorological Office of deliberately messing about with Russia's temperature data. None made the slightest reference to a scandal that had seriously compromised the basis on which the so-called science of climate change had built its dodgy case.

Now we know that contrary to the growlings of global warming watchdogs and the agenda-ridden BBC (climate change, assisted euthanasia and a well-formed anti-Christian bias) the Ice Cap in the North Pole is, lamentably, growing not decreasing; and some of Al Gore's scientist friends, who predicted global warming now forecast global chilling. There has been no U-turn to compare with this since the Vicar of Bray survived changes by switching deftly to the winning side.

The Met Office, incidentally, predicted a "mild winter" for Britain, with temperatures above average. The Brits are freezing still. The Daily Telegraph's Christopher Booker called the office "a national scandal". Working in tandem with CRU and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) the three form an unholy trinity.

One of the most prominent members of the IPCC, which has been thumping the global warming drum for nearly two decades, now has this to say: "A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th century was due to cooling and warming cycles - perhaps as much as 50 per cent". No exclamation mark is necessary. "They have now gone in reverse, so winters like this one will be much more likely."

None of this has persuaded world leaders to reconsider their stance vis-à-vis global warming and the billions of dollars they are prepared to throw at a theory that, to borrow a phrase from Lino Spiteri, shows every sign of unravelling. The question needs to be asked. Does our government seriously intend to confront a situation that does not exist on the Armagedonnesque scale the IPCC would have us believe? More sensible to launch a relentless campaign against the pollution we see and the quality of air we breathe, than to pour good money down uniquely UNesque drains.