SORRY, NO
Every person walking this Earth has the right to an opinion. This is a sine qua non of democracy, which is the best way to govern that we've figured out so far, and anyone who has lived through any regime that has sought to dictate which opinion is the exclusively acceptable one in society knows what I mean.
And once you have an opinion, you ought to have the right to express it. To my mind, this democratic imperative applies in virtually every circumstance.
Attentive readers will have already noticed that I wrote "virtually" just then, and it does not take a remarkably astute leap of deductive reasoning to work out that if I wrote "virtually", there was a "but" lurking there somewhere, waiting to crawl out from under its rock.
Well, here it is: everyone generally has a right to express his opinion but people like Mr Norman Lowell do not.
On Monday, I was settling down to a movie on the goggle-box and I had Twitter on, keeping an eye on the general pulse, as it were. I was advised through this medium (it is quite useful, once you figure out what it's for) to check out Bondi+, where the aforementioned Lowell was being interviewed, in a one-on-one setting, by the eponymous Lou.
The movie went on hold and I watched the rest of the programme, having missed a few minutes only.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Mr Lowell was ranting semi-incoherently in his usual manner, spouting all manner of crap. That word has been used in my regard on the electronic Times, so I'm justified in using it now. Mr Lowell's opinions are nothing more and nothing less than crap. Racist, misogynist, prejudiced, divisive crap.
If he has the guts, which he doesn't, he can sue me for libel, because I am calling him a shameless charlatan who uses half-baked ideas and pseudo-science to preen and wriggle, no doubt he imagines seductively, in the publicity this programme got him.
A man, if I can grace him with that appellation, who suggests that anyone who adopts a non-white should be deported along with the child he or she has adopted, or who openly advocates the killing of children born handicapped, deserves nothing less than being called a crap merchant.
Lowell accuses the Jews of everything that has gone wrong with the world and thinks Moslems should be sent back to their regions. He makes gross remarks about women and blacks, which in the most moronic redneck throwback to the late Fifties would sound revolting, much less coming from the mouth of someone with whom I am ashamed to share a passport.
He spouts crap, no more and no less.
So, why do I say that Lowell does not have the right to express his opinion, for all that it's the opinion of someone who seems to have the logical capacity of an idiot savant, who takes in words and phrases and spews them out in some form of order to justify his philosophies of ignorance?
Quite simple: he comes to the table of human rights, expecting to be allowed to dine with the rest of us, with dirty hands. He espouses the denial of basic rights to millions, born and unborn, and yet he expects to be granted the type of protection that he denies them.
That is not on. Lowell does not have the credentials even to glance at the menu, much less fill his boots.
You may ask why I've wasted so much time on this person: he's a joke, a bad joke at that, and deserves to be treated as such.
I would have agreed with you, having seen how the semi-literate idiots who infested vivamalta.org evaporated when their hero showed the world his true colours (yellow, for anyone who is wondering)
And I would almost - almost, but not quite - agree with what must have been the idea behind Bondi+ exposing the man for the intellectual phoney that he is: make him look like a laughing stock and you've condemned him to being a sick joke for ever.
But, sorry, no: there were too many comments on FaceBook which while paying lip-service to the idea that Lowell's ideas are beyond rubbish, used the usual code words of the bigots. "He's not completely wrong, you know" and "well, he has the right to his opinion and he has the guts to talk about things" are the sort of phrases that kept cropping up, along with "you might not agree with him, but you have to admit he‘s well-read".
These were people with the brains to use a computer: can you imagine the reactions of the illiterates for whom television is the only source of information?
And there's another facet to the programme that had me squirming: it was the knowledge that there were many people who were laughing their asses off at this sad and ludicrous human being. Not really such a leap from agreeing with him that the mentally defective should be put down, really, is it?
Lowell should not have been given the oxygen of publicity, however well-meaning was the underlying intent.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
36 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
David Seychell
May 12th 2010, 12:38
@Kenneth Cassar
Definitions apart, regarding hate speech or no hate speech, I think we both agree on the moral point here.
Kenneth Cassar
May 12th 2010, 12:13
@ David Seychell:
In any case, even if it is demonstrably true (it actually isn't) that there is a genetic difference in intelligence, 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.
Kenneth Cassar
May 12th 2010, 11:29
@ David Seychell:
May I also remind you that my only reference to hate-speech was in reply to Vladimir C Forte's comment which was about race and religion, and not abortion or disability.
Kenneth Cassar
May 12th 2010, 11:18
@ David Seychell:
Apologies for late reply. Now here are my answers to your direct questions:
1) Do you think that what Norman Lowell said on Bondi+ equates to hate-speech?
First of all, here's the definition of hate-speech according to http://www.dictionary-reference.com :
Hate-speech - speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
Now for my reply. Since I did not even watch the programme, I cannot answer the question with any certainty. However, my objection to giving Lowell free air-time is not limited to the possibility of any hate-speech from his part.
2) Do you think that what the Pro-Choice openly suggest (that is, that women should have the right to kill their unborn babies) equates to hate-speech?
According to the definition given above, nothing the "Pro-Choice" movement suggests (as far as I know) amounts to hate-speech, although some of their arguments might be condemnable for other reasons. For instance, the argument that there is nothing problematic at all about abortion, and that abortion is just an amoral means of birth-control is morally and philosophically indefensible.
Sean Grima
May 10th 2010, 08:36
norman lowell is an insult to the western culture he says he loves so much. the man should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred.
David Seychell
May 9th 2010, 18:40
@CJohn Zammit
"To answer your disgusting question to Kenneth Cassar, the pro-choice lobby ensures that a woman's rights to her body are safeguarded. Whether or not a woman chooses to carry her pregnancy does not affect anyone else."
Yeah sure, it does not affect anyone else, except the human being (or humans, in case of twins) present inside the womb. Dream on Mr Zammit.
Anyways, I am very pleased that you do consider "disgusting" my question addressed to Mr Cassar ". This is because in general I'm very pleased that people like the ones that advocate the killing of innocent and defenseless unborn babies or other such atrocities, do also find what I say to be disguting. For this reason, I hope that people of your kind continue to find what I say to be disgusting, cause that would mean I'm very different from you and your kind.
CJohn Zammit
May 8th 2010, 21:00
@David Seychell
To answer your disgusting question to Kenneth Cassar, the pro-choice lobby ensures that a woman's rights to her body are safeguarded. Whether or not a woman chooses to carry her pregnancy does not affect anyone else.
What prelates, politicians and certain pooh-bahs pontificate, legislate or propose, affects all women whether they like it or not.
@charles grech
One has to be a lunatic to idolize Hitler and consider Churchill a cretin.
Qustion: How has Norman Lowell managed to fool Nature while morphing into a monstrosity without the process of evolution or the benefits of biology?
@All
Malta owes its current affluence, in large part, to migration.
In 1954, I emigrated to Canada along with thousands of others who sought a better life in distant lands. We were, in essence, "economic refugees".
Of course, we were "LEGAL" migrants ... but that did not stop the Lowells and Seychells of the day from wanting to send us back, because, to the average person, we were DPs and WOPs taking "their" jobs. Charity begins at home, right?
How wrong they were!
Leo Bartolo
May 8th 2010, 17:12
For once I absolutely agree with you. Since you mentioned the word 'crap', I guess I can use it too. Lo(o)well's opinions and ideas are nothing but crap
Robert Agius
May 8th 2010, 13:37
@ C Borg
That is if you have a fixed concept of democracy. In truth, it is in constant progress, like all other forms of terminology. Lets leave that aside since it would be a rather long argument. Then you must agree that having just to main political parties is very dangerous. Also, its is a downright deception since after all there are too many issues, perspectives etc. to just be represented by only 2 major parties. Then there is also the problem of voting, since the choice of the people would only fall every 5 years.
Anyways, back to Norman Lowell. Twat or not he is still innocuous, and hopefully he will remain that way. Unfortunately you can never tell, Hitler got elected.
Robert Agius
May 8th 2010, 13:04
Indeed I am aware of the 'helplessness' we have but that only goes to show how much harder we need to strive to attain anything close to a democracy since after all, in a capitalist world, powers of control (even self control) are flawed.
What i mean to say is that its easy to just say lets help and safeguard the rights of those who make it 'here' rather than seeing the world from a world's eye view. Let me give you an example. Take South America (so rich in resources), Countries their gained their 'independence' at a heavy cost - natural resources. Now everyone cries of for free trade, but truth is that when it comes to resources, things are far from 'free' or democratic. Of course these are the things that never got rectified and most of the resources nowadays are controlled but the 'western world'. People's lack of choice, or ignorance in such matters, is no excuse for such helplessness since it is the people who still have the power of a vote, hence part of the responsibility.
charles grech
May 8th 2010, 09:04
Part 2
for the simple fact that he is only struggling to preserve our Maltese Gozitan race from being bred out and overtaken ! Am I to understand that in today's Malta day and age those who show concern on the latter mentioned should be put behind bars?! I guess Mikiel Anton Vassalli and all who predate him and post date him are tumbling in their graves right now. Our ancestor's blood was shed in vain ; we are losing what our generations fought for since some elements in high power want to keep us in check. Norman is wrong to call us Gahan ; he should call us Ttraitors who prostitute Malta and Gozo instead! Our forefathers fought to eleviate these islands from the quagmire of alien dominion and the enemy within of religious hypocrisy and control over the years of our history ..but history is repeating itself only this time the weapons used are the Ink and the tapping into our national soft spot of being Generous to Strangers but Lousy to eachother. GAHAN MALTI wake up from your slumber ; charity starts at home.
charles grech
May 8th 2010, 09:00
Part 1
Re Bondi + 3rd. May 2010 on
Lowell's Imperium Europa.
I would like to express my thanks to Lou and his team for giving us such interesting programs and hosting interesting people. On the 3rd. May was hosted Mr. Norman Lowell and discussed was his Imperium Europa idea ; now printed in a book that bears the same title. I read it and found it to be very interesting indeed even though I do not agree with Lowell's ideas totally. As the program progressed I kept noticing how intellectual Lowell is and yes very spiritual indeed! I agree that artists are ahead of their time ; Leonardo da Vinci for example and many more . Not to mention scientists and scholars who had to endure the Thought Police of their time THE HOLY INQUISITION in EUROPE.As the program progressed I kept noticing how intellectual Lowell is and yes very spiritual indeed! I agree that artists are ahead of their time ; Leonardo da Vinci for example and many more . Not to mention scientists and scholars who had to endure the Thought Police of their time THE HOLY INQUISITION in EUROPE.
Dr Francis Saliba
May 8th 2010, 07:17
@CBorg
The very first sentence of our republican constitution is that Malta is a "democratic republic". A republic could be both a functioning democracy and a country governed by mob rule.
Mob rule may occur in your versions of both a "republican" or a "democratic" form of government - but is not a peculiar to either of them it could be an abuse of both. Rule by the majority with respect toward minority rights could apply to both types of government. The essential feature of a republic is its Head of State but a President could be the Head of State of a democratic state and also or a rogue state.
C Borg
May 7th 2010, 16:55
@Robert Agius
Quoting a wise man, We were given a Republic, if we can keep it!
Putting things into practice. Consider what democratic (i.e., mob) rule would actually mean. It would mean that, as long as you can get 51% of the people to agree on something, it could become law. It doesn’t matter how evil or wrong their belief would be, only that they vote for it. Perhaps 51% of the people believe that the other 49% should give the majority all of their money. In a democracy, this is how it could work. The majority has spoken; therefore, it would be the law.
The sad fact is one of the biggest mistakes in our time has been made using democratic (mob) ways - the EU Referendum. The constitution forbade it and they got round this by letting the Mob rule. Was it because the majority knew better than the minority? Or was it the shrewd ways used by the Leaders to propagandize and fear monger. I leave that up to you.
Kenneth Cassar
May 7th 2010, 13:58
@ Robert Agius:
"The problem is that EVERYONE"S hands are dirty in the 'western world'. I am sure you have enough knowledge to realize why, and who is responsible for the millions around the globe without any rights".
Let me overlook the fact that it is not true to say that everyone is responsible for the millions without rights around the globe. However, you surely must know the difference between being helpless in guaranteeing respect for the rights of everyone despite willing to, and on the otherhand, in principle strongly holding that more than half of the world's population should have no or inferior rights to "white" straight males.
David Seychell
May 7th 2010, 13:31
@Kenneth Cassar
"But since you mention it, it would be interested to know your own views on abortion, and then your views on killing the handicapped, to see whether you yourself have "two weights and two measures"
I expressed my opinion on abortion many times, for example here: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080918/local/abortion-ban-in-the-constitution-muscat-seeks-more-time-to-consider-proposal and so I don't want to repeat myself. But whether one is in favour of this or that was not my point. So I will ask it plain and simple this time: 1) Do you think that what Norman Lowell said on Bondi+ equates to hate-speech? and 2) Do you think that what the Pro-Choice openly suggest (that is, that women should have the right to kill their unborn babies) equates to hate-speech?
Robert Agius
May 7th 2010, 12:35
@ C.Borg
Putting things into practice, can you tell me if we have a republic and not a democracy then?
Robert Agius
May 7th 2010, 12:08
You say - Quite simple: he comes to the table of human rights, expecting to be allowed to dine with the rest of us, with dirty hands. He espouses the denial of basic rights to millions, born and unborn, and yet he expects to be granted the type of protection that he denies them.
You are 100% correct. The problem is that EVERYONE"S hands are dirty in the 'western world'. I am sure you have enough knowledge to realize why, and who is responsible for the millions around the globe without any rights. Voters are as guilty as the voted. In case you do not, I suggest you get back to your books. Of course its impossible for a small country like ours to make any difference in the world so i think we need to put things back to scale. I think you should be focusing on more serious issues that our country is facing (especially since you mention human rights and all) cause Let's face it, Norman Lowell will never deny anyone's rights since he will never get elected, other have.
Robert Agius
May 7th 2010, 11:51
part 1
Let me make it clear from the start that i in no way agree with ANYTHING Norman Lowell says. He is indeed a dangerous person Racist, misogynist, prejudiced, divisive crap. Unfortunately these kind of people are not only found in Malta, just take Antwerp, Belgium as an example.
I think it would be very dangerous to try to avoid or ignore what he has to say however. That is unless you believe that people only vote because of propaganda fed to them rather than have faith in their discretion when it come to take a vote. There is one trait that I can at least salvage from this eccentric folk - Honesty in expressing his sick ideas. I mean at least he says what on his mind unlike many others (namely partisans) who feel more incline to obey rather than be honest about their opinions. That is what is REALLY dangerous Andrew. Of course there are many who think they are honest but aren't since that would imply knowing it all. which leads me to the next point...
Kenneth Cassar
May 7th 2010, 07:40
@ David Seychell:
It is well to remind you that Lowell has already been sentenced for hate-speech, and it had nothing to do with abortion. But since you mention it, it would be interested to know your own views on abortion, and then your views on killing the handicapped, to see whether you yourself have "two weights and two measures".
Kenneth Cassar
May 7th 2010, 07:05
@ David Seychell:
I'm not in any pro-choice lobby group, so perhaps you should ask the question to them.
Kenneth Cassar
May 7th 2010, 07:03
@ Vladimir C Forte:
Respecting any and all opinions is at best silly, at worst dangerous. Respecting all opinions is not progress...its moral relativism, an "anything goes" amorality.
I respect anyone's freedom as long as one's freedom does not infringe on the freedoms of others. And clearly you cannot argue that killing someone (the handicapped, for instance) is not infringing on one's freedom, can you? Do you respect THAT opinion?
You say that Lowell is no threat to anybody. What about people who happen to be black, gay or disabled?
That no one mentioned the word "illegal immigrants" before Lowell did, is irrelevant. Criticize the government all you want about this. You're perfectly entitled to. But don't give Lowell more than its worth. Lowell only mentioned immigarants in order to use others' genuine concern for his own despicable ends.
And of course you did not feel threatened by his book. I'm assuming you're not an immigrant, black, gay or handicapped. And no, I do not appreciate a sense of humour in people who use it to entice the guillable and poison their minds.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
May 7th 2010, 05:58
There is a rather simple way of dealing with this - freedom of speech subject to laws against vilification. But sadly, Malta's armour of legislation is not that sophisticated. That is what you get when you have part-time parliamentarians.
David Seychell
May 6th 2010, 19:55
@Kenneth Cassar
"In a democratic country, the state protects vulnerable people from hate-speech against them. People who effectively deny the rights of others, cannot claim respect for their "right" to deny others their rights. "
If what NL said about the unborn and the "neo" born, is equivalent to "hate-speech" and if "the state protects vulnerable people from hate-speech against them" then, how come the Pro-choice manifestly say that women should have the right to kill the "vulnerable" babies and no one accuse them of hate-speech against vulnerable people? Two weights to measures?
Dr Francis Saliba
May 6th 2010, 17:31
@VladimirForte
The horrific judicial methods catalogued by you were not confined to Catholic ecclesiastical tribunals. Abhorrent as they undoubtedly are by modern standards, at that time they were the general rule extensively applied throughout both civilian and religious societies. You are only exposing your blinkered hatred against present day Catholicism. That is totally irrelevant to this blog. The blind vehemence of your comment reduces your comment to absolute irrelevantworthlessness.
Vladmir C Forte
May 6th 2010, 17:20
@Kenneth Cassar
My point is I do not justify what Mr Lowell said but on the other hand I respect also his opinion and freedom. Things happened in the past, but we moved on..its called progress and what happened...that's just collateral damage....wrong place at the wrong time. Mr Lowell is no threat to anybody, he is just passionate about his country and the Idea. May I remind everybody that before Mr Lowell even mentioned the word illegal immigrants, nothing was said, so some good did come out of this man. I read his book IMPERIUM EUROPA and at no time I felt threatened, on the contrary I enjoyed this man's idea, passion and sense of humor.
Peace
C borg
May 6th 2010, 17:12
Very nice article but i would like to point out one error. Please remember that Malta is a Republic and not a democracy.
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).
Kenneth Cassar
May 6th 2010, 14:45
@ Vladimir C Forte:
What you say in your reply to me, is all true, but is equally irrelevant. We're discussing Lowell on National TV here. Two wrongs do not make a right. So please try to stick on topic.
If you're interested in my views on the Catholic Church, you may wish to take a look at Fr Joe Borg's blog.
Vladmir C Forte
May 6th 2010, 12:16
@Kenneth Cassar
@Kenneth Zammit Tabona
Over 100 years ago, Catholics used to slaughter non-believers
In Malta the Inquisitor used to torture people in his courtyard
During the Third Reich the Vatican and the Pope saluted Hitler
Just over 30 years ago in Malta it was considered a curse to have a handicapped child, Around 30 years ago in Malta you were dammed by the Church if you voted Labour
Today, in Malta again, Gays are not recognized properly by the majority of the Church
Two years ago, once again in Malta, 4 priest were accused of child abuse, nothing happened ever since and one escaped
A few years ago, in Malta, we gave a Presidential pardon to a drug lord that must have poisoned thousands of young teens
If I continue with the list I will risk the editor not to publish it so I will stop here
...these are facts that are conveniently forgotten or never discussed
Madeleine gera
May 6th 2010, 08:12
Although Lou Bondi has every right to invite who he likes to feature on his programme, I question the value of hosting the likes of Norman Lowell ., even for circus -value.If there isn't 0 tolerance in Malta on Racism , there should be. Lowell not only expresses views on race which are defunct science but he is advocating and inciting hatred and intolerance through his views.This cannot be permitted in any society that considers its self civilized. Equally twisted were Lowell's views on people with mental and physical disabilities . Disability and inclusion is where we should aim to be going to in Malta. People with physical and mental disability are amongst the most deprived in the world and frequently the most neglected. Fairness to people in divergent circumstances is what should be debated and how this fairness should be achieved. Shame on Lowell for saying what he did! It is beyond irresponsible.
Kenneth Cassar
May 6th 2010, 07:25
@ Vladimir C Forte:
1. In a democratic country, the state protects vulnerable people from hate-speech against them. People who effectively deny the rights of others, cannot claim respect for their "right" to deny others their rights.
2. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged". I will believe you take that seriously when someone robs you or kills a member of your family, and you tell the court to drop all charges.
Kenneth Zammit Tabona
May 6th 2010, 01:31
@Mr Forte
I think you should read Dr Borg Cardona's article again very slowly and carefully and with a dictionary at hand as I am afraid you have not understood it. When you come to paragraph 13 make sure you read it at least three times and aloud if possible.
Denis Catania
May 6th 2010, 00:21
I was thinking of buying a Dali painting now I'm going to invest some more money and buy me a Lowell. I wonder if he can shoot it up to space for the 500,000 Euros he charges.
Loredana Gatt
May 5th 2010, 21:04
Andrew, I think that Lou Bondi did well to interview him. These kind of people get protest votes, precisely because people find them challenging and "funny". Lou Bondi did a good job of exposing him as a dangerous person who would do anything to attract attention to himself. In fact , Bondi never argued with him but treated him with cool distance. I thought he put him to ridicule very effectively.
I cannot imagine who from your facebook "friends" found him interesting or cultured - believe me whoever did ,has problems of his own.
I hope that this interview served to expose his real self and, as you rightly put it, his crap to the three thousand odd weirdos who voted for him.
Vladmir C Forte
May 5th 2010, 16:56
Dear Mr Borg Cardona,
In a democratic country you are free to express yourself just like racism can come from any direction, color and race. If you didn't like what Mr Lowell said, you had all the liberty to continue your movie, but you chose to view the program so you can come the next day to judge and insult another human being....talking of human rights. Who are you to judge ? We proudly proclaim that we live in democratic country, with Catholic values, we make sure to hear mass on a Sunday, yet we dictate others what to say and do, interfere with others lives and if you say the wrong words....oh my god, you have had it.
Bible: Matt. 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged"
John Ebejer
May 5th 2010, 13:11
You constantly shower praise on Lou Bondi, yet, not a single word of criticism is levelled at him in this opinion. Many refer to NL as a madman, yet, the real madness here comes from LB who dedicated a whole programme to him and gave him this opportunity on state tv.