Ban Lowell
I had some clothes to iron so in order not to waste too much time I tried to do the ironing while watching Lou Bondi interview Norman Lowell. Ironing the clothes was a useful exercise. Watching the prime time show on TVM was a disgusting experience which, to add insult to injury, was unfortunately partly funded by my own taxes.
Lou was well prepared. He did his homework well. Whatever Lowell said, Lou had a reaction or an answer to. He managed to keep a straight face throughout the programme; definitely not a mean feat. The programme was a good example of loaded humour. I have no problem with the way the programme was produced. My problem lies with the fact that the programme was produced! Worse still: it was produced on national TV and during a respectable news show.
The producers can say that the programme was aired to respect Lowell right to spead his opinions. PBS has the right to equally apportion time between political parties and it thus have a duty to give time to Lowell and his party. Oh, I see. Should I write that I am impressed by such a high moral ground attitude to broadcasting? I prefer to just write: pull the other one.
The producers can say that they wanted to show Lowell as he really is: a fanatic, a buffoon and a dangerous person. This is a more credible argument. However, this does not justify the broadcasting of the programme. Those who before the programme thought that Lowell is a fanatic buffoon still think the same about the man. But, he has been proving himself to be so for the last twenty years or so. There was nothing new in the programme which gave us a deeper insight into the man's fanaticism. Seen from this perspective the programme was a sheer waste of time.
For some (perhaps, most) of the above, the programme was also an occasion for entertainment. People smsed or phoned others telling that to watch TVM and to laugh to their hearts' content by the contents of the programme being broadcast. These viewers are slighting Bondi+ by their comments as Lou's programme is not a comedy show. Seen from this perspective the programme tarnished the credibility of the producer.
Those who before the programme thought that Lowell is a great person still think that he is fantastic. Now they love him more as the programme - in their estimation - was another example of persecution against Lowell. He has the guts to say in public what they believe but do not have the courage to say in public themselves. Our public service broadcaster increased and not decreased Lowell estimation in the eyes of his followers. Seen from this perspective the programme was a failure.
Many others - generally vulnerable people - must have been offended, hurt or even frightened. This list includes people who adopted children from African countries. Some could believe that their loved ones could be in danger of being exiled from Malta. Disabled persons and their families must have felt offended. They will be more gravely offended if PBS foolishly tries to defend its mistaken decision to let the programme be broadcast by saying that Lowell has the right to air his venom and hate on national TV.
What irked me most about the programme was its lack of context which could have perhaps justified the hurt caused because of some overriding public interest. A friend of mine smsed me with the question: is there a survey going on now? His is a very cynic position. Many people will accuse Lou of selling himself for ratings. I do not share this position. I am sure that the reasons Lou had for producing the programme were good and praiseworthy. I think he did it believing the programme would discredit Lowell. I do not doubt his intention but I also believe that he was totally off the mark.
I fear that now presenters of lesser stature than Lou would invite Lowell to their programme as this is how the media circus works. They would not be as prepared as Lou was and consequently Lowell would fare better in such programmes. This would give Lowell more publicity.
Lowell is a nobody. Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese. He has been given his fair share of exposure which could have then been justified by the argument that people had to be informed about the monstrosity of his ideas. To-day, I think, that argument is no longer valid. He is just a fringe politician spouting hate. There is no place for the propagation of hate on public service TV.
PBS should take an editorial decision that Lowell would not be given coverage on the station barring exceptional circumstances due to some overriding public interest.
Would I be asking too much if I urge PBS to publicly apologise for this mistake?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
66 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
May 12th 2010, 13:33
@ David Seychell:
"I fully agree with you here, and than you say we never agree on anything".
It is impossible to disagree on everything with anyone.
David Seychell
May 12th 2010, 12:45
@Kenneth Cassar
"Actually he didn't. For that, he would have to produce evidence for the claims of genetic differences in intelligence. He never did."
When I said that he confirmed NL's line of thinking I meant to say that Watson agrees with his idea of different intellingence in races and not that he proved or not proved this or that genetic claim.
"there's a difference between stating a scientific "fact", and using that "fact" for an immoral agenda - namely that of subjugating or eliminating a whole race and denying anyone right of mixed-race marriage, adoption and residence. After all, intelligence is no determinant of fundamental rights. "
I fully agree with you here, and than you say we never agree on anything.
Kenneth Cassar
May 12th 2010, 11:57
@ David Seychell:
"...little did he know that James Watson confirmed N Lowell's line of thinking".
Actually he didn't. For that, he would have to produce evidence for the claims of genetic differences in intelligence. He never did.
Divergence in intelligence and invention, as Jared Diamond argues in "Guns, Germs and Steel", are more likely to be due to geography and the opportunities the habitat permits. The conquest of Africa by Eurasia can be traced back to diet, in the sense that the lack of possibility of plant and animal domestication in some countries/continents made unaviodable a hunter/gatherer lifestyle as opposed to an agricultural one.
This in turn led to very different political and social systems where in the agricultural lifestyle (with its affluence and surplus food), a centralised government together with specialised jobs such as armies, food producers, inventors, teachers, etc (each devoting their full time on their individual task) was possible, while all individual hunter-gatherers had by necessity to devote their time to hunting, leaving little or no time for technological invention, education and strong organised armies.
While the above is all theory, it is recognisably more plausible than any assertion that the differences are/were genetic.
David Seychell
May 12th 2010, 11:47
If Norman Lowell says he's "Pro" a society with the "Choice" to kill severely handicapped unborn babies, or born babies not older than one hour, than, according to many people this is hate-speech and incitement to violence. But for these same people, if those in favour of abortion campaign in favour of women having the "Choice" to kill the babies living inside their womb, than -according to these people- that's not hate-speech or incitement to violence against the most vulnerable human beings: the babies living inside the womb.
Where is the Logic?
David Seychell
May 12th 2010, 11:17
@Melissa Bagley
"What I would like to ask is what ONE SINGLE STANDARDIZED TEST is able to test IQ. How do you measure intelligence, and what are the criteria?"
I don't think that intelligence can be measured, this is because scientists have not been able to define intelligence yet.
"IQ has long been used and abused - it is a tool used by a minority to try and establish a hierarchy of the elite."
IQ tests are very respected tests because they can predict with good accuracy how well children are going to perform in accademic subjects. For this reason most colleges and universities in USA use them as admission tests.
"In 1989, the IQ test was listed by the American Academy for the Advancement of Science as one of the 20 most significant scientific discoveries of the century."-http://www.ehow.com/about_4683612_iq-tests.html
Having said that, my point was not whether IQ test really measured intelligence or not. My point was whether Bondi did his "homework" well or not. Bondi highly praised James Watson, and tried to use the scientist's credentials to convince us that NL was scientifically incorrect, little did he know that James Watson confirmed N Lowell's line of thinking.
David Seychell
May 11th 2010, 19:36
@Mary Borg
I think it's because the articles in the most-commented list are now removed after just a few days.
Melissa Bagley
May 11th 2010, 16:41
@ David Seychell
What I would like to ask is what ONE SINGLE STANDARDIZED TEST is able to test IQ. How do you measure intelligence, and what are the criteria?
Even so, even if Watson has a theory, that theory can be counteracted and modified, or create different theories to explain behaviours.
IQ has long been used and abused - it is a tool used by a minority to try and establish a hierarchy of the elite.
Mary Borg
May 10th 2010, 15:17
"Ban Lowell"
Apparently, the one being banned here is Fr Joe Borg, from the 'most commented table', because judging from the number of comments present here, it shuold easily be listed amongst the most commented articles.
Sean Grima
May 10th 2010, 08:34
norman lowell is an insult to the value upon which our country is built.
ftheuma
May 10th 2010, 08:19
The followers of Mr Lowell could fall in one or more of three different categories; 1. Incredibly ignorant and therefore unable to think independently, 2. mad, or 3. irresponsible cynics.
ftheuma
May 10th 2010, 08:13
@ Steve Pace:
'There is one thing you cannot deny him . That over 7 years ago he had prophesized that Malta would be invaded by illegal immigrants .' prophesized? Try stating the obvious instead. I do not think that anybody with a head to think with needed Mr Lowell to be told that illegal immigrants would continue to come to Malta in a steady stream. If I tell you that next year the month of February will follow the month of January, I would be right but it will not make me terribly clever or deserving of any adulation for the perspicacity of my observation will it.
CJohn Zammit
May 10th 2010, 05:57
Just finished watching the national news ... here's the story of one Canadian doctor who came down with ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease). He would be a candidate for Normal Lowell's genocide program.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100507/sutherland-als-pain-doctors-100509/20100509?hub=TopStoriesV2
My brother, 16 months younger than me, died 53 years ago at age 21, from Muscular Dystrophy. He spent most of his life in a wheelchair. He, too, would have been targeted by Norman Lowell.
Some 35 years ago, a young British lad of about 12, was shown on TV. He was totally disabled from birth. All he could move was his hands. His mother loved him and nurtured him. He could not do anything, except play the piano ... like a Mozart or Chopin. Lowell would have euthanized him too.
@Robert Attard
Lowell is not saying anything new. He is merely reviving the discarded pseudo-science of Eugenics, favoured by Hitler. Promoting genocide is not an expression of opinion; it's criminal.
@Steve Pace
It's not a simple question of legality; it's the attitude of the average person of the host-country that counts. We were legal, but to the average Canadian, we were robbing them of their jobs. They wanted us sent back.
David Seychell
May 10th 2010, 04:01
"Lou was well prepared. He did his homework well. Whatever Lowell said, Lou had a reaction or an answer to."
I beg to differ. I don't think that Lou Bondi did his homework so well. Infact Mr Bondi praised the Nobel Prize winner James Watson, the man who discovered the DNA, just before quoting him in order to support the idea that there's no difference in intelligence between races. Then, Norman The lowell, replied by saying that that scientist is the same person that said "you only need to employ black people to know about the difference in their intelligence". At first I thought that NL was confusing the Nobel Prize winner with someone else, but then I did a little research on the internet and was very surprised to discover that he was right. The scientist that Lou Bondi quoted with the intention to discredit the idea that different races have different intelligence, was infact of the opposite idea.
"all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really" -James Watson
"Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html
Dr Francis Saliba
May 9th 2010, 15:58
There is no need to give importance to anyone preaching racial hatred by "banning" him. When the law is broken he should be prosecuted promptly together with anyone else who aids and abets him by giving him space on the media.
Robert Attard
May 8th 2010, 19:40
I don't agree that one should ban lowell. i don't agree with him in the very least but i don't agree that one should stop him from expressing his views as long as others can voice their opposition to him. Banning people from voicing their opinion is just admitting that they might have a strong argument!!
john. a. ebejer
May 7th 2010, 22:00
Fr. Joe,
I fully agree with you that such a programme should not have been screened on national tv, nor any any self-respecting tv station for that matter. Many of his views are inspired by a cocktail of hatred, stupidity and arrogance. His comment on people who adopt children from Africa was particularly disgusting and hurtful.
Charles Grech
May 7th 2010, 19:00
Dear so called Christian brethren ; I shall utter a special prayer for Godly forgiveness for all of you who dare cast stones on our Maltese brother Norman Lowell. I shall also pray for forgivness from the almighty God for the way that your allies the PN has condemmed us to death yesterday through their vote on erecting that death machine called Power Station. I hope that by now our all merciful God has forgiven all the sins of those who represent him and his son our Lord Jesus Christ on these prejudiced islands of Malta and Gozo for commiting horrific crimes through the ages. Crimes like burning people at the stake ( the latter maybe not so in Malta but nonetheless commited by the same power politoco/religious agency ) indicent assaults of the innocent , siding with a political party ( the fishermen of souls turned agents for a political party and went fishing for votes ) , burying people in unmarked graves devoid of the cross and depriving them of absolution for the simple fact of having fallen short of God's representatives's ally's colour and creed .. history facts!
Norman Lowell
May 7th 2010, 16:27
"When educated persons, such as yourself, accept any of Normal Lowell's ideas, then I worry.@ John C Zammit.
The Chinese Emperor used to refer to the British ambassador in Shangai as PLS.
In White uniform and plumed hat, he used to think of himself as a peacock.
Pompous and Laboriously Stupid!
Richard Curmi
May 7th 2010, 09:55
"Lowell is the ONLY politician on this island with a patriotic, moral, and a realistic fibre. If that is a fact poor Malta and the Maltese because that would be a really big problem, Mr. Joe Fenech.
Do you seriously think or believe that NL's vicious solutions are the fruit of moral fibre? Which dictionary did you consult to look up the meaning of moral, Mr. Fenech? If you are right those people, working or volunteering to help eg at Dar tal-Providenza are lacking of moral fibre. What a disastrous kind of morality and patriotism.
Are Maltese in general really willing to let their hard earned money being spend in such a way by the public broadcaster? If not they should jam The Authoritie's telephone lines and send them as many messages as it takes to make them listen to their protests
Steve Pace
May 7th 2010, 07:59
@C John Zammit - I totally agree with you on your first part of the comment you made., You need not worry because as i said before , i am no big fan or rather not a fan at all of NL. So in that respect i am totally with you in every word.
I would like to continue on your second part though, My argument is very simple. Maltese emigrated legally with all documents in hand. Wherever they went they made us proud.
These people are coming with no documents and no information what so ever on their origins, intentions. Some of them turn out to be criminals. Their mobility is an orchestrated and well organized business and i am sure that no one would be ready to allow someone in their own house give them food and shelter and mobile phones without knowing who they are,
If you go through Marsa and HalFar you can see the situation. They are also trying to work illegally asking for the minimum wage . Is this right.
Being a christian or a catholic should not mean allowing people to take advantage of the kind hearts of the Maltese or others .
CJohn Zammit
May 6th 2010, 20:31
@Steve Pace ... Part 2
You said: "but sometimes what you describe as xenophobia turns out to be the result of not knowing the origins and genuine intentions of those who travel to Malta or Europe illegally ."
Firstly, an ill wind blew them over.
Secondly, christian values (note the lower-case "c" -- I am a Humanist and therefore, do not believe in Divinty or the afterlife, but I do believe in the message) demand that we help without question.
Lastly, Malta's current affluence owes a huge debt to migration.
When I, along with thousands of other Maltese, emigrated, Malta's population stood at about half of today's, and yet it took emigration to keep the economy afloat.
We were all legal emigrants. In my case, I was approved, in person, by the Canadian selecttion team sent to Malta, and Europe, in search of immigrants.
But in spite of the blessings of both countries' governments, once I arrived in Canada, I found that, to the average Canadian, I was notthing more than a DP or a WOP, taking "their" jobs.
They wanted us sent back. Just like Norman Lowell would do.
How wrong they were!
Migration is too complex an issue to be entrusted to a deranged individual, even one of the "biological aristocracy".
CJohn Zammit
May 6th 2010, 19:45
@Steve Pace
When educated persons, such as yourself, accept any of Normal Lowell's ideas, then I worry.
When popular TV hosts, such as Lou Bondi, devote over 90 minutes of prime-time to such a character, then the situation is really problematic, given that everything known about NL is offensive to human dignity.
Anyone who denies historic facts, such as the Holocaust; idolized Hitler; refers to Sir Winston Churchill as a "cretin"; proposes euthanasia for the disabled; holds people of colour to be inferior; and self-appoints to "biological aristocracy", belongs in an asylum for the insane. In Lowell's case, he belongs in jail ... for inciting hatred toward the most vulnerable.
If I were in a position to challenge Bondi's choice of guests, I would ask:
Is it possible that my native Malta,a civilized nation with 5000+ years of history, has a culture so lacklustre and void of talent that we have to scrape the bottom of the cesspool in order to produce a ratings-topping show?
Steve, in reply to what you think is the cause of xenophobia, I am breaking my rule and continue in another post, because this is too important a subject to simply skim over.
Continued ...
Joseph A Borg
May 6th 2010, 18:15
Short of adding hate laws to our judicial system, the best approach with these clowns is to go Stetson Kennedy on them…
I don' think it's fair Fr Joe to single out PBS. If the programme didn't break any laws, then PBS has a hard time justifying a ban. I'm sure Bondi can wiggle around any constraints PBS would put on the programme in name of policy and still keep it entertaining. After all, as you said Bondi is a pro and the subject is, well, a sandwich short of a picnic…
So yes, you are going too far in asking PBS to apologise, if anything you should be asking for a debate on introducing hate laws and how to balance them with free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stetson_Kennedy
Kenneth Cassar
May 6th 2010, 17:20
@ Steve Pace:
"... and what happens in the meantime to the rest who are waiting to be checked ?".
The answer can be found in your own question.
Kenneth Cassar
May 6th 2010, 15:49
@ Joe Fenech:
"Lowell is the ONLY politician on this island with a patriotic, moral, and a realistic fibre. All the others are more than useless!".
So I suppose that to you, being moral means killing the handicapped, sending all deserving refugees back to be murdered in their own country, denying gay people teaching jobs, etc. Do you even know what Lowell is really about, before calling him "moral"?
Kenneth Cassar
May 6th 2010, 15:46
@ Steve Pace:
I never said that 3559 votes should be ignored (they're actually 3637 if you add Attard Ruben's). Actually, the votes cast for Lowell's party show that we do have a problem in Malta, which surely is not helped by giving Lowell free publicity.
But please note that when I wrote "not that it matters", I used it in its relevant sense. Even if it were 3 million votes, that would not make Lowell's despicable views any more valid.
So please, don't quote me out of context and try to understand what I'm saying.
Leo Bartolo
May 6th 2010, 15:01
I usually enjoy reading your blog, but this time I only read the first sentence when I realised that it was about Lowell. Ugh!!! What a waste of time Fr Joe writing about him. I am sure that ironing clothes, or doing anything else for that matter is more useful than watching that man on television prattling away in a most obtuse way. I would not even watch him on the 'Boomerang Channel' much less on National television. Complete waste time of time and tax-payer's money
gaffarena joseph
May 6th 2010, 14:15
You had a ban once father joe,Why you do not want us to hear the 2 sides of the coin.I, do agree that there were times that I, do not agre e with him, but there was truth i n what he said.Years age he began to warn us about these illegals,and men like you began to laugh at him, but it all happened.Ride the no.13 bus, and you will think that you are the refugee,in yiour own country.
I, will ban, those corrupted priests.I, will ban those thousands of euros that went down the drain in 26 hours.I, will ban those responsable for all the delay in years to have an a marriage annulled.
Father Joe,deep down inside you know that Norman is right, but your mission is only to ban those people who do not share your ideas.
There are many bans that I, wish to write abouit, but I, know that the editor will use his scissor,a scissor that it is outdated now, but still in use in our country.
Zak A.Portelli
May 6th 2010, 12:45
Indeed he did make a fool of himself on Bondi plus.... I used to watch his videos with a serious attitude and for most I would say that I wouldn't mind giving him a number 1 vote, but with what I saw on Bondi plus actually shocked me. Indeed one could have a love for country and thus wish that certain culture is protected and is not trampled on by outsiders and once could always speak out against the destruction of European culture and European race which really is falling fast, but I would like to ask Normal Lowell, isn't that partly our fault? Europeans are opting to having only one child at the very most... whilst African immigrants are having 4-8 children...his extremist views are what in the end is preventing him from gaining more votes. He also has a grudge against the Church and yet loves European culture... how can he separate European Culture from the Church? After all the Church has shaped society in Europe since the conversion of the Roman Empire..
Joe Fenech
May 6th 2010, 09:48
Ban???? Are you serious??????? I guess you're one of those who votes the miserable PN and PL!
Lowell is the ONLY politician on this island with a patriotic, moral, and a realistic fibre. All the others are more than useless!
Steve Pace
May 6th 2010, 07:52
@Patrick Larrson - " So What is the problem " - The ones not eligible are sent back. Fine... and what happens in the meantime to the rest who are waiting to be checked ?
@C.J Zammit - True , i am no big fan of him , but sometimes what you describe as xenophobia turns out to be the result of not knowing the origins and genuine intentions of those who travel to Malta or Europe illegally .
@Kenneth Cassar - "not that it matters" Sure...... you may continue to dump your head in sand and ignore 3559 votes .... You would make a perfect politician ...
Raymond Sammut
May 6th 2010, 05:11
"Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese."(Borg)
Fr Borg alleges that "many" Maltese have a "xenophobic" attitude. In my view, this type of allegation has by now become a familiar attitude in itself.
More importantly, he shows that democracy in Malta is alive and well. This is the reason, for example, why Fr Borg takes to liberty and publicly labels someone as "dangerous", while at the same time expects the media to impose a "ban". Clear contradictions from a confused mind.
@ Fr Borg
If we want to look for dangerous men, Maltese people know where to find them, and more importantly, also know how to deal with them. There should be and there can be no need whatsoever for you to warn society about "dangerous" men.
CJohn Zammit
May 5th 2010, 21:12
In civilized societies, such as Malta, citizens live by the Rule of Law which imposes certain reasonable limits on one's actions. Thus, one is issued a license to drive a car on passing the requisite driving test, but the license does not extend to having the driver exceed the posted speed-limit even if the car is a shiny, new Lamborghini.
There is a huge differnece between the "free expression of opinion" and the"wilful propogation of hatred toward identifiable groups".
Mr. Lowell's rants fall in the latter category. If he were in Canada, he would be paying a very stiff price, under our anti-hate laws.
Listening to him on Bondi+, I must admit that, when it comes to hate-mongering, he is enthusistically pro-free speech ... as are his acolytes appearing on this blog and elsewhere.
@Steve Pace
NL is a scumbag of the lowest order. Sadly, he speaks for a lot more than 3600. With xenophobia, racism and anti-semitism running rampant on the Islands, he probably speaks for the majority of Maltese.
@Fr. Joe Borg
As Ms. Debattista has pointed out, it's about ratings.
You need to have a serious talk with Mr. Bondi.
Patrik Larsson
May 5th 2010, 20:37
Steve Pace:
"You can also come with a solid argument to convince us that most of the illegal immigrants deserve to be called refugees . The facts will state otherwise , since most of them are not eligible to be called refugees."
What facts? The ones not eligible are being sent back, so what is the problem?
Kenneth Cassar
May 5th 2010, 19:36
@ Steve Pace:
2009 European Parliament Elections (first count votes):
AD: Cassola Arnold: 5235
AD: Arqueros Ebejer Yvonne: 567
IE: Lowell Norman: 3559
IE: Attard Ruben: 78
http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/elections/2009/EU_Parlelections/eu_parl1.asp
Kenneth Cassar
May 5th 2010, 19:30
@ Steve Pace:
"It is also a higher percentage (Lowell's) than what Alternativa Demokratika obtained".
You got your "facts" wrong, not that it matters.
Steve Pace
May 5th 2010, 18:14
@Fr. Joe - Part 2 - "Lowell is a nobody. Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese"
careful now ....you might be stepping on dangerous ground here . Normal Lowell obtained 3600 first count votes in the elections . Are you insinutating that 3600 people are nobody ? I bet that it is a close figure to the number of priests we have in Malta !
It is also a higher percentage than what Alternativa Demokratika obtained and 2600 votes more than the difference between the Nationilsts and Labour Party !
So i would not exactly say that he represents nobody ! He actually represents almost 1 Quota
Steve Pace
May 5th 2010, 18:09
@Fr. Joe - You can ridicule the man , his personality, his presentation and most of his arguments. There is one thing you cannot deny him . That over 7 years ago he had prophesized that Malta would be invaded by illegal immigrants . Try to argue with that and come up with a solid argument saying that what he said did not come true.
You can also come with a solid argument to convince us that most of the illegal immigrants deserve to be called refugees . The facts will state otherwise , since most of them are not eligible to be called refugees.
The church wants dialogue with different religions who deny that Jesus is the Son of God, beat him and crucified Him.
The church wants dialogue with religions who deny the pope as the head of state.
Yet the only words that can come out of a member of clergy in respect to NM is to BAN him !
How come no compromise and dialogue is desired when it comes to uncomfortable topics ?
Richard Curmi
May 5th 2010, 12:55
@Joseph Carmel Chetcuti: racial vilification is not the only behaviour that makes victims suffer so yes you are right I had all the ways and means, words and deeds that can cause suffering to any person/s. To me all those people suffering because of these inconsiderate words and actions are victims and very vulnerable at that. I will take a similar stance against all those who cause others to suffer. No two measures for me.
Still in deference to believers I would never offend them by using deprecative descriptions of their sacred books whether I agree with them or not.
Ms DeBattista I tend to agree with you that Lou new Lowell's value in the ratings. For the sake of increasing the number of viewers anything goes and that is why we are seeing so much rubbish on TV around the world.
Yes there is a kind of fascination about the boy; indeed I watched a 9 minute video of him being interviewed and was greatly amused hearing him declaring himself a prophet and adroitly putting his foot (feet) in his mouth in a Babyloian fashion.
Unfortubately his ideologies are very dangerous if taken on board.
Lina Caruana
May 5th 2010, 10:33
If what Mr. Lowell has said was pronounced by some "hated" target , some would have been up in arms to denigrate him as arrogant against minorities. Is this where minorities do not count? Truly this is the worst form of discrimination , attacking the person and not the substance. Does this show up the quality of thought or the decline of human values by a small category of individuals ?
Kenneth Cassar
May 5th 2010, 08:45
To clarify on my previous post, I would not say "ban Lowell". I would only say "do not invite him". After all, its not as if there's a National Election round the corner, is there?
Antoine Vella
May 5th 2010, 08:07
It is not quite true that Lowell is not afraid to say what he thinks. On the programme he made several anti-semitic comments but stopped short of actually mentioning Jews because, as he admitted, he was afraid of the legal consequences, due to his suspended prison sentence. His bombastic and outrageous statements are not a sign of courage but of unmitigated arrogance.
The clichè that we have to respect people’s opinions is also not true: we respect people, not their opinions. Unlike people, opinions are not all equal and deserving of respect.
While it is undesirable and, anyway, impossible to ban ideas, one can certainly ban their expression when this takes the form of incitement to hatred, especially on a racial or similar basis. It is not a happy situation when free speech has to be curtailed but sometimes society has to make choices and go for what it perceives as the lesser evil.
Kenneth Cassar
May 5th 2010, 07:43
Here's where I agree with Fr Joe Borg and somewhat disagree with my own brother Kevin.
True, there's freedom of speech and all that, but we're not talking about prohibiting Lowell from airing his views, here. After all, his book is sold through Malta's bookstores.
Here we are speaking about a National Television producer actually inviting Lowell to air his views (presumably for ratings and advertisment revenue).
For all it is worth, while the Pope's visit didn't interest me a bit, one must acknowledge that apart from the Pope being a head of state, he is also the religious leader of the majority religion in Malta. This in itself justifies the air-time given. Now, who actually does Lowell represent?
From what I gathered through comments I heard (I'm usually not interested in "Jerry Springer" type cheap TV, so I did not watch it), the programme was not a debate (Lowell, I believe, was the only speaker on the "panel"). A debate with several speakers expounding all sides of the issue would have been justified. Wasting my taxes on dangerous "comedy" is not.
But we're used to crap TV anyway...thank goodness for the option of switching channel.
J. M. Buhagiar
May 5th 2010, 04:04
Ah Fr. Joe what a dirty strategy.
First you ensure you do not turn Lou against you and blow him up. Then you move to effectively dictating that PBS should start "Shutting Out" people. Shutting Out is the only one of 7 attitudes I know off that my training sys-never use it. It Changes Everything.
PBS gave him the opportunity to air his views. Few if any agree with him and that brings him failure. Il Kastik.
The Times is also a leader in NEWS transmission. You use it regularly. Give us the news and seek to lead people to understand - by all means. But dictating!
I remember this kind of political attitude 26 years ago. Remember the one sided political transmissions. It never had my support - no regrets. The interdet was another Shut Out and this had my support at the time but years later, today, I realised I was a fool.
Similarly the Chirch managed to Shout Out loads of other bad practices. Problem is that today I realise that the Church understands its mistakes years after the occurance. Meanwhile God know how many suffere and lived with the concequences.
Unacceptable by any measure.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
May 5th 2010, 00:17
@Richard Curmi on the Pope being a head of state. This is medieval rubbish. The pope has to decide whether he is Christ's representative on earth or the head of state. He can't be both. Christ was never a head of state ... so neither should be the pope. It is about time for the Italians to take back that part of Italy called the Vatican. Perhaps the Pope and his lot could migrate to Malta. He will certainly find a few flag-waving fanatics.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
May 5th 2010, 00:12
Borg and his matey priests should turn their minds back to World War II when a cowardly pope (Pius XII) turned a blind eye to the way Jews (and gays) were treated by the Nazis, and he did this against the advice of the German bishops. Does Borg remember how the mass used to end? Does he recall the prayer for (or against) the Jews? Or what about the way Jews were treated during your glorious Catholic Inquisition? Good on you, Borg. Keep up your selective history.
As to Lowell mixing Italian with Maltese, what about thouse thousands of Maltese who mix Maltese with English, displaying an ignorance of both languages? When will governments act to protect the Maltese language.
Joe Xuereb
May 4th 2010, 23:44
I have to say that I do not know much about NL so I cannot say much for or against him. However, buffoon is a strong insult and its use is ill-advised. That said, I think he sounds like he would have a few juicy things to say to someone who is all for a proliferation of mosques in Malta all in the name of freedom of worship.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
Adriano Spiteri
May 4th 2010, 21:58
Mr Joe Borg please note that you form part of an organisation which is recently being attacked due to scandals that it didn't excuse itself for. Scandals it kept hidden for ages. That is what I find disgusting, coupled with the fact that the Pope himself helped keep this as covert as possible to 'minimize damage'.
By asking for a ban you seek Communism and Dictatorship. Is that what you are able to come up with? Is that what the Jesus you preach used to teach?
The good thing is that I also pay my tax and get the type of talk-shows I seek.
Unfortunately though I pay for a newspaper I long to read everyday and find your literature included. You might be a good priest, but if we're expressing opinion, you're one lousy philosopher.
Lowell might be your ideological enemy. Love him, that is what you preach!
C Mallia
May 4th 2010, 19:23
Ah, Fr Borg, your blog post is nothing more than a frightening manifestation of the dual standards which the Church is mired in.
Endorsing the silencing of an individual like Lowell is rich, coming from a member of the clergy, a clergy who have spouted backward, intolerant, mistaken diatribes to orderly congregations for centuries. The audacity to propose muting a "fanatic buffoon", when the head of the Catholic Church is predisposed to do little more than harp on about the perceived evils of 'contraceptives' 'homosexuality' & 'divorce', is laughable,in light of the Pope being the Primus Inter Pares of "fanatic buffoons" in his own right.
It pains me that the arrogance of the clergy as our "moral authority", to quote the ridiculous self glorification of the Bishop of Gozo, manifests in calls for muting politicians (regardless that it is merely NL).
I think that If anyone ought to be silenced, it is you, 'Fr.' I say you crawl back into your gold plated caverns, and cradle the red and purple vestiges of your "moral authority". the Church has played the politics game enough, time to back off. Please.
Kevin Cassar
May 4th 2010, 17:55
@ Neil Sant
Bravo!!!!! You could not have said it any better.
Sarah Busuttil
May 4th 2010, 17:38
Mr. Lowell,
I sincerely hope that you are reading this message right now, I feel embarrassed that you are a fellow Maltese.Your thoughts and ideas are ludicrously crazy. Many men and women fought for equal rights for Black, Jewish, Asian, Arabic and the disabled…how dare you talk rubbish about these human beings? Your thoughts and so called “ideas” are a shame to Malta. When you pass on, you won’t be remebered as an “idealist” instead, A Loony Toon!
Last night you criticized Karl Marx for killing 40 thousand Europeans, and praised Hitler as your "Hero", When he alone Murdered between 11 and 17 million Jews and Disabled ! I am not sure If you are aware or just plain stupid but don’t you think that you are being a hypocrite?
Stop speaking Italian and speak your native language – DO NOT MIX AND MATCH LANGUAGES IN ONE SENTENCE!
As Martin Luther King stated in his speeches “ I have a dream" I too have a dream… and you are not in it ! You are far away on that shuttle frozen in outer space with your beloved Embryos and Europids.
One Love!
Neil Sant
May 4th 2010, 16:45
Yesterday I watched a Maltese program for the first time in ages. Why? Whatever Norman Lowell has to say, he has the right to say it and it's good to have someone speak their mind instead of being a hypocrite. Instead of trying to ban NL, you should debate him and destroy his arguments. Trying to ban someone reeks of cowardice and shoving one's face in the sand. Beat the man on his own terms. Try to ban him and you earn him sympathy. Just think what would happen to the popularity of Osama Bin Laden videos if the US actively tried to ban them.
V. Fenech
May 4th 2010, 15:54
Fr. Borg, once a good man said "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"... Apologies, but I don't think it's right to call people 'a nobody' just because we do not agree with their views.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
May 4th 2010, 15:02
@ Richard Curmi. "People like Lowell know no bounds, they have too much hatred pent up in their chests. In cases like this I would not hesitate to favour censorship." If you are talking about racial vilification you may be right but I doubt this is what you have in mind.
"This unlimited freedom of expression even at the expense of vulnerable victims is a blemish on our so called modern society." Who decides who are the vulnerable victims? Would you take a similar stance against the Catholic Church and the damage it has done to gay and lesbian victims - and I do not only mean thiose children who were abused. Would you shut them up and censor them? Or would you excuse them on the basis of a vile and vindictive Scripture?
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
May 4th 2010, 14:52
"Lowell is a nobody. Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese." Neither was Christ. He was crucified. Even one of the apostles turned against him! Others fell asleep.
"For some (perhaps, most) of the above, the programme was also an occasion for entertainment." What Christian charity!
Whether I agree with Lowell or not is irrelevant. He has something to say and unlike many of his compatriots is not afraid to say. For that I admire him.
Lowell and some of his neo-fascist friends invited me to a night BBQ when I was last in Malta. I have to say I had my reservations about joining them. But I did. And I found them all and without exception extremely nice, Lowell included. Someone even bought kangaroo meat to be BBQed.
The point I am trying to say is this: there is good and bad in all of us. There are some very prominent Maltese leaders and clerics who have been making fools of themselves for years. No one blinks an eyelid at them. I prefer views to be aired than left to fester in the darkness.
Jessica DeBattista
May 4th 2010, 14:47
@ Richard Curmi:
Part2
Norman Lowell is an eccentric, and eccentric people arouse interest. We might feel entertained by the way they project themselves but they can be dangerous if their eccentric ideologies infiltrate enough to the extent that they will no longer be regarded as eccentric.
Ideologies that seminate racial hatred, for instance, are to be snuffed out not given exposure. We cannot condone Norman Lowell’s ideology, neither should we regard him as a waste of time.
Jessica DeBattista
May 4th 2010, 14:45
@ Richard Curmi: “I hope you didn't burn a shirt or two!”
Part 1.
Exactly my thoughts Mr. Curmi and I was going to say it, but you beat me to it.! Though I don’t for a moment believe that he was actually doing the ironing during the programme. I think Fr. Joe just wants to stress a point. – Norman Lowell is a waste of time!
Unfortunately, I did not watch Bondi + since there was a programme on another channel which I could not miss. However I did switch quickly to TVM hoping to get at least the tail-end of the progrmme because I do find Norman Lowell fascinating as a subject, and contrary to what Fr. Joe says, I think that Lou Bondi was after ratings when he invited him on his programme for he knows full well that he draws an audience, immaterial whether it is pro or con.
Continued....
andrew farrugia
May 4th 2010, 14:23
I do not agree with banning or prohibiting expression, even of the most revolting sort . The same kind of solution which i advocated for vella gera and his puerile ventures into literature is the best course to take --- RIDICULE, LAMPOONING, DISDAIN. Yesterday, the programme helped me to understand the meaning of madness. Still not sure whether to laugh or cry.
Richard Curmi
May 4th 2010, 14:15
Any visit by a Head of State is paid for by the hosting Government from the citizens' money. In the case of the pope's visit the expenses were shared by the Govt and the Church as the Pope is also the Head of the Church. Whether we share his beliefs or not is immaterial. The Pope is internationally recognised as the Head of the Vatican State whether we like it or not.
In the case of Norman Lowell taxpayers' money should not be used to help him propagate himself as the Prophet, hurt vulnerable people and call the Maltese people 'Gahan'.
I do not agree with many of Emmy Bezzina's opinions but for the life of me I cannot understand how, on a few occasions I know of. he stood by Norman Lowell and defended his rantings of which even the nastiest of extremists would most probably be ashamed.
D Azzopardi
May 4th 2010, 13:57
And who are you exactly to deny one person's freedom of speech...a right guaranteed by our Constitution?
I will be the first to say that I think Norman is way off the mark on his policies, and I certainly do not subscribe to any of his beliefs. But he has a right just like any other to state his views in public..it is a sacred right that separates us from oppressive communist regimes that try to control the people, and one which we must strive to protect.
You talk about our taxes being used on things you don't agree with. Unfortunately, you're not the only one with that problem...just like my colleague said below, I would have rather seen the Pope stay in the Vatican and spread the word onto our television sets rather than waste much-needed public funds on assuaging his ego, as well as those of all our politicians who are always more than happy to pounce on any opportunity to feel important.
At the end of the day, you watched the show. You didn't have to..that's your prerogative. And as Jerry Springer always says.. "If you don't like the show, don't watch it".
John Ebejer
May 4th 2010, 13:48
@ Daniel Vella - I find it disgusting and out of place for you to somehow equate Lowell with the Pope. Not that I think much of the present one that there is. But surely, you cannot claim that the negativity and danger that surrounds anything Lowellian has anything to do with that of the Pope. Even the present one.
Patrik Larsson
May 4th 2010, 13:33
In all honesty, putting him on the show as a laughing stock might actually be a good idea. Ridicule actually works in exposing stupid and even dangerous ideas. The guy is a joke and the sooner people realise that the better. Also, people who stand behind people like him are used to being alienated and it even strengthens them, but usually take great offense at being mocked.
Daniel Vella
May 4th 2010, 13:08
Fr Borg,
It sounds to me like you're trying to censor Mr. Lowell, something I do not agree with at all.
When you say that the programme did not change anybody's view, to me this is very similar to the Pope's visit here in Malta. People who believed, still believe, and those who didn't still don't. Does this mean that the Pope's visit should not have taken place?
However, I couldn't agree more on your point that he is a fanatic. His ideology is frightening on one hand, and laughable on the other. I do not agree with it in the slightest and would be very scared were he to get elected. I watched yesterday's Bondi+ more for its comical entertainment more than anything else. Qed tifhem?
Kevin Cassar
May 4th 2010, 13:01
"Watching the prime time show on TVM was a disgusting experience which, to add insult to injury, was unfortunately partly funded by my own taxes."
Now you know how it feels. Not very pleasant is it??? You were not complaining when pope Benedict came for an expensive holiday funded by OUR taxes. And by the way, what happened to "Thou shalt not judge"? You're equally a "nobody" like Norman Lowell and the rest of us, myself included.
Richard Curmi
May 4th 2010, 12:36
I hope you didn't burn a shirt or two! You won some accolades from my wife: "a priest can iron his clothes and you do not even know how to hold the iron" she said. I can do and actually do a lot of housework except cooking and ironing. Why did you have to start your blog like that?
From down under I didn't watch the programme but if those kind of vulnerable people were hurt by Norman Lowell he had no right to be on the national medium. This unlimited freedom of expression even at the expense of vulnerable victims is a blemish on our so called modern society. People like Lowell know no bounds, they have too much hatred pent up in their chests. In cases like this I would not hesitate to favour censorship. Nobody should have the right to hurt people. And nobody in their right minds should ever defend such right.
I would also suggest that to be considered for the right of having an apportioned time with other parties on TV a party should have polled a considerable number of votes at elections.
Family votes a party do not make!
jlaus
May 4th 2010, 12:00
I saw Bondi+ as well as I admire Lou(with all his defects) ,as he is good presenter and conducts a discussion programm very well. well yesterday it was Mr, Lowell's turn to show up,So who are you to call Mr, Lowell as he is nobody,,he is a taxpayer a s you and me.and he has a right to voice his opinion,although 99% of what he said was totally against my beliefs.