Bondi, PBS say they wanted to show Norman Lowell 'warts and all'
Norman Lowell.
Broadcaster Lou Bondi' and the Acting CEO of PBS, Natalino Fenech, insisted this afternoon that Norman Lowell was interviewed on Bondi Plus on May 3 to show viewers who he really was.
They gave their explanations to the Broadcasting Authority, which has accused them of violating broadcasting rules on racial equality.
Pierre Cassar, the CEO of the Broadcasting Authority, said that Mr Lowell had spoken about Hitler being his hero, and about denying the holocaust. He also promoted racism.
Mr Bondi', Mr Fenech and legal counsel Therese Comodini Cachia, argued that their aim was to expose Mr Lowell "warts and all" and to immediately rebut his objectionable comments.
Mr Lowell had been challenged throughout the programme with facts and counter arguments.
Mr Bondi' said that after the programme he had not found anyone who could argue that Mr Lowell's position had been strengthened as a result of the interview. Some had complained that the programme should not have been broadcast, but when he spoke to them they acknowledged the reasoning behind it.
Mr Bondi' also pointed out that Mr Lowell had been previously interviewed on the TV - including an interview by Toni Abela on Obelisk.
Mr Lowell, he said, was a man who had garnered 3,500 votes in the European Parliament elections. The ideas he had spoken about were not new and had been uttered before, but now they were challenged.
The purpose of the interview was not to show the staid man portrayed of BA election clips where he was warned not to break the law, but the man who thought that Hitler was a hero.
Dr Comodini Cachia said that one had to balance freedom of expression and the public's right to know with freedom from discrimination. The producer could not be held responsible for what his guest said, especially when he rebutted those arguments and disagreed with what he said. This was the situation in overseas caselaw.
Mr Bondi' said that should one argue that one could not interview people whose views were found objectionable by the population at large, one could not even discuss abortion.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
93 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
J. Attard
May 20th 2010, 17:35
@ A.Darmanin
Yes, Bondi too should be prosecuted because by reading Lowell's heretic book, he has been inciting his own self for racial hatred, chapter after chapter.
Stephen Farrugia
May 20th 2010, 14:09
All we need now, are a few illegal immigrants and that would be the cherry on the cake. :)
Karl Abela
May 20th 2010, 12:21
Lou Bondi, alot of people dont like you presumably because of your politcal soft spot for the blues. Nevertheless, whatever you do, you do it very well and Bondi + is the only program I never miss out on TVM.
Keep it up!!!
Joe Fenech
May 20th 2010, 10:59
Grow up and get spiritual, Malta! Your end is approaching: corruption, illegal immigrants, bankrupt businesses and country...
mario aquilina
May 20th 2010, 09:57
Lou Bondi - Malta made Jerry Springer.
We love you Louy.
Fabian Borg
May 20th 2010, 13:22
You mean MALTA`s LARRY KING !!
Stephen Farrugia
May 20th 2010, 13:58
If Bondi was in the USA, he would be famous and Mr Lowell's book a bestseller.
Joseph Calleja
May 19th 2010, 21:10
Everybody fails to understand that shows like Bondi Plus, Xarabank etc (talk shows) are built on sensationalism and that is what happened on this particular show. These shows thrive on shock. The host throws the bait and the rest happens. The more controversial a show is the more people talk, and as they say, sometimes even bad publicity is good publicity! Remember the tv remote has a button that can change a channel at will.
Mary Borg
May 19th 2010, 19:51
Two years ago, a man who claimed to be a prophet told Lou Bondi on Bondi+:
"Il-konsegwenzi politici ta' din is-sentenza ser tbaghtuha int u l-media kollha ghax issa tridu toqoghdu hafna attenti kif tirraportaw l-affarijiet." No need to say Lou Bondi was very amused by his "prophecies" although now that he's going to be penalised he might just be a little less amused after all.
Victor Vella
May 19th 2010, 19:49
Unless Mr Lowell does not offend or annoy anybody, he has the right to do and say whatever he likes. Whatever the people say he succeeded in getting more than three thousand votes in EU elections. He deserves to be interviewed in bondi+- Why not.
E.Schembri
May 20th 2010, 09:40
@Victor Vella,
I'm afraid he has offended thousands of people, ....all those who have a disabled child, or a family member with a low IQ and all those who have married or adopted a person of different colour. According to Mr Lowell, these people should be put to death, sterilised or banished from Malta.
And his reasoning?? ..well he says that is how its done in nature.
Mr Lowell looks at the animal kingdom for his ideologies, while real humans embrace their unique aspects that differentiate humans from animals, such as compassion, tolerance and respect.
So there you have it Mr. Vella. Now can we sue Mr.Lowell or do you want his ideologies to eventually become a reality?
Sean Grima
May 19th 2010, 18:22
lowell should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred.
B. Cachia
May 19th 2010, 22:29
Should the thousands who support him and the (at least) tens of thousands who agree with him be prosecuted too?
A.Darmanin
May 20th 2010, 10:52
Bondi should be prosecuted for denigrating Lowell :P
Dr Francis Saliba
May 19th 2010, 17:52
@MiguelMicallef
I do not have any personal problem that asks for any solution from you with regard to Lowell’s illegal racist views. I “do have trust in my intelligence to be able to decide what to listen and what not”. But not everybody else has that same ability because there are laws to protect these people. Side stepping the law and giving his views illegal publicity on the media is dangerous and reprehensible because this could increase his following. Personally refraining from listening to him will not solve that problem as it might affect others.
Priests in Malta have the right and duty to teach what is right and what is wrong. That includes the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality. It is defamatory to distort that teaching into “spreading hate against gays” or any other illegality. Lowell’s racist sentiments are not being wrongly or mistakenly being “interpreted” as spreading hate and racial discrimination. Their dissemination has been proved to be actually illegal by our Courts of Law on those grounds.
D Phillips
May 20th 2010, 00:07
@Saliba,
I’m always at a loss as to why you attack and disparage anyone who condemns the Catholic church for their anti catholic bias yet stoutly and unconditionally defend anything and everything related to the Catholic Church, and in doing so show your own bias. Surely blind faith is wrong, no matter which side you are on.
Whilst not agreeing with anything Lowell says, I fail to see why his stance on any given subject is any more or any less reprehensible than that of someone who attempts to defend priestly perversions, attempts to defend the institutional cover up of these perversions, and who attempts to defend a leader, of the same institution, who has been implicated in the cover up of said crimes. Who supports an institution that would deny a person specific rights because of that persons sexual orientation, an institution that denies a woman the right to make decisions concerning her own body, an institution that denies couples the right to divorce.
(continued)
D Phillips
May 20th 2010, 00:08
You delight in repeating the mantra that the priests of the Catholic Church in Malta“ have the right and duty to teach what is right and what is wrong”, this despite the fact that the very same members of the very same church seem to have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing the difference between the two.
K FARRUGIA
May 19th 2010, 17:39
why are we afraid to hear a diffrent idea or idology? are we living in a free country or not? this reminds me when the catholic church urged it s fidels to stick the yellow sticker, re not to allow some jehova witnesses knocking their doors. are we that much "imzazen", swollowing everthing we hear? i think everyone is able to come to his own judgement after hearing and weighing things. some are pretending that one should spend his life with the same ideas that he/she was dectroned with when he/she was young. lets face it, we hear so much worst things than Lowell s from people on street. i personnally heard so much brilliant ideas what to do with illegal immigrants when approaching our shores from the "insara" in the street!!!do you?????
David Seychell
May 19th 2010, 16:24
@ Joseph Micallef
"forcing everyone to believe facts cannot be bad can it?!"
Sure... and the Mdina dungeons proves your point.
Martin Cassar
May 19th 2010, 16:07
Having a Lowell is actually a must!
A healthy society must have a room and equal rights for every member of the society such as extremists, moderates, gays, lesbians, black/white peoples, clergy, prostitutes, lawyers, teachers, businesspeople, thieves, drug addicts, religious, atheists….etc.
The trouble however occurs when a certain category that may create instability within the society outnumbers and unbalance the harmony of the society. A healthy society is also like having a luxury villa, can you imagine living in the most expensive villa without having a toilet?Or again, can you envisage living in the most expensive villa and having a countless number of toilets?
Having Mr. Lowell in our society is healthy sign but too many Lowells will be like having a luxury villa with too many toilets. In democracy, ballot boxes are the only way to avoid unbalanced society, thus any body that may create unbalanced society should never pass from ballot boxes.
If you look at it in different way you will find out that, Hitler was patriot, so is Osama Ben Laden, the crusaders were patriots so are the Jihadists, all depend on which side of the fence you stand.
martin borg
May 19th 2010, 16:06
Some comments after reading the contributions so far :
- Right to free speech does not mean right to incite racial hatred as Lowell did.
- I agree with the screening of the BondiPlus programme as it revealed Lowell's true colours , not the sanitised pre MEP election clips broadcast by the PBS.
- Anybody could see that Lou was exposing Lowell for what he is. Perhaps the exchange of gifts could have been avoided but judging by the level of Lowell's artistry I believe Lou got the rotten end of the stick . The 'I survived Bondiplus' mug was a better bargain than the Lowell magnum opus.
- M.Seychell said multiculturalism is against human nature and that people do not want it and never will. That may be so but I'm afraid that it is inevitable and is here to stay. And let's say it as it is, here in Malta its not multiculturalism that Lowell is worried about. Its blacks, Jews and the physically and mentally challenged.
Andrea Axisa
May 19th 2010, 13:22
I thought public opinion in accepted in Malta. At least i can say that it is the very basic idea of Democracy. Lowell has every right to say what he wants , and it is up to you to agree with him or not. I admire Lowell for determination. I agree with Lowell to some extent, but I do not agree how he intend to solve problems.I may be wrong, for everything..i emphasis 'everything'..for everything new in our world is suppressed and opposed for the very simple reason that it isnew. Lowell is implanting the new idea of Imperium Europa which may be taken in effect in the next generation...we can't say for sure. The imperium europa is just opinion. Just like Communism. Marx thought that it would be Britain that would take up Communism and would never have thought that Russia would take up his ideas and develop them. I don't think that Malta would ever develop Imperium Europa..its just too Catholic and the church oppose Lowell..for sure. It may be the country of Germany or Italy that would begin the Imperium Europa. I say again.. its just an opinion in a democratic country.
A.Axisa
Sean Grima
May 19th 2010, 10:46
a lot of people are coming here to talk about freedom of expression as if it were an an absolute freedom giving you the right to say what you want. of course, every right has its limits, particularly the need to respect the rights of others.
Christian Sciberras
May 19th 2010, 12:06
That is why there is no freedom of expression.
The worst is that very few (if at all) realize this, the others accept it unconditionally.
Then some even take advantage of this.
Stephen Farrugia
May 19th 2010, 13:14
@ Sean Grima
I find your opinion very offensive and even downright illegal beyond any doubt and Norman Lowell is not illegal next to yours.
Stephen Farrugia (RSD)
R. Gauci
May 19th 2010, 10:46
Norman Lowell is 75% right in what he says, obviously one cannot agree with him when he takes his arguments to the extreme especially those regarding the disabled and Maltese who adopted black children.
Christian Sciberras
May 19th 2010, 12:03
The 75% right doesn't do to what he says. At all.
One can be 100% right by not saying anything at all.
David Attard
May 19th 2010, 10:08
Lou Bondi is doing such program's to have some free publicity as he know's that his program is stale so with this article he is getting what he want's.
Give us a break Lou and lets be realistic you are on the PUBLIC station not your Personal station
Dominic Debono
May 19th 2010, 08:22
Lou Bondi's programme is nothing but simple cheap sensationalism (not unlike Xarabank). I always find it hilarious when Rachel Attard appears out of nowhere reading her script in her permanent tedious monotone as if the end of the world has arrived.
I'm all for free speech and believe that everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However I was offended when after Lowell claimed that adopted children should be shipped back to their original country along with their foster parents, Mr. Bondi showered Mr. Lowell with gift vouchers and a mug reading "I survived Bondiplus". Mr. Lowell returned the favour by giving Mr. Bondi a "work of art" which he gratefully accepted. I would never give presents or accept anything from such an extreme person.
"Mr Lowell had been challenged throughout the programme with facts and counter arguments". NOT TRUE! Mr. Bondi spent an hour and a half nodding, stuttering and kissing Norman Lowell's backside.
A Cardona
May 19th 2010, 07:54
Everyone has the right of freedom of speech. Its part of every free country. I rarely watch any local station, but watched this one up. Mr.Bondi was evidently all against him. He did a great job.Mr.Lowell has every right to express his ideas. Some of them are literally science fiction and others are very controversial and egoistic. If anyone did not like to hear them all s/he had to do was switch over to another channel.Those who are criticizing this programme might as well start criticizing the internet.
One question i wish to ask to anyone out there is this. One other point in this programme that left me reflecting is the term Holocaust. Why is this given so much importance BUT however the 46 (FORTY SIX) million exterminated in LEGALIZED abortions (murdering) in the USA alone since 1973 (and COUNTING) and not including the other abortions in the EU and rest of the world at the same time, are rarely criticized as EVIL by any nation leader (except the Pope). If the killing of 6 million is wrong then what is it of 46+ million?
Christian Sciberras
May 19th 2010, 12:01
Hellooo? There's no broadcasting authority on the net!
Anyone can upload anything from nuclear bomb blueprints to jumping cats!
Stella Calleja
May 19th 2010, 07:06
I didn't watch Bondi plus, but if they put a warning at the beginning that the content might be offensive to some people, together with an age rating, I think it should have been ok to show people exactly what Normal Lowell thinks. It's good that there were counterarguments and not just letting Lowell preach on his own.
Tony Scott
May 19th 2010, 06:44
@ all that are defending this MANIAC. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF. YES I AM A DISABLED/HANDICAP PERSON and if Mr. Bondi and all really wanted to “show viewers who he really was” they should have invited others who can show this MANIAC his DIABOLIC MIND..As for this MANIAC I WOULDN’T BE WRITING OR DO OTHER THINGS AS HE WOULD HAVE SHOT ME, GASSED ME OR PERHAPS EXPERIMENTING ON ME AT THE AGE OF 6…
@ Mario Aquilina
For your information I NEVER WAS A COWARD AND WAS NEVER AFRAID TO STAND UP AND WHO KNOWS ME PERSONALLY THEY WILL TELL YOU. Maybe I do agree with you about the Media as lately I HAVE BEEN BLOCKED OR BLACKLISTED BY SOME.
I AM HOPING THAT TIMES OF MALTA WILL SHOW THIS AFTER ALL I AM DEFENDING MYSELF.
malcolm seychell
May 19th 2010, 02:33
Nobody should be afraid of Norman Lowell
the problem if you can call it a problem is that on some issues almost all true europeans agree with lowell or politicians who think like him.
Censorship or prison won't change what really people think and believe.
Europe have spent billions of Euro in favour of multiculturalism.
People still do not want it and will never want it, because it is something against human nature.
Pule' Carmel
May 19th 2010, 00:55
Bondi Plus and Xarabank aim high, so that they attract attention. We just had a few conquerers who climbed Everest to attract attention. Well the psychology of attracting atttention is the same when Bondi uses a big fish as Normal Lowell, as far as attracting attention of the general public the PBS could do no better. Life is like that. Everest , Norman, Riding bicycles, rowing from Scicily etc.
andre schembri
May 19th 2010, 00:32
personalment ma nahsiebx li anka fuq mibedha razzjali ghandna niccensuraw xi opinjoni, ghax ghalkemm jiddisgustawni dawn l-argumenti, li tahbi il-xenofobia mhux ha issolvi xi problema ghax il-poplu fit-triq xorta ha jgib ruhu skond dak il-pregudizzju; u persuna bnaqa intelligenza tinduna li l-argumenti ta dawn in nies huma stupidi u antikwati u ibbazzati xej iktar fuq fantazzija infantili u biza infantili...
minn naha l-ohra ma nafx ghala it-tvm fil-prime time taha ghanda tghamel uzu daqsekk hazin tal-hin ; billi flok tintervista proffessuri u nies ta integrita fuq suggetti kurrenti , tqajjem suggetti li bhallissa mhumiex daqsekk ta interess generali billi iggib nies li minnallijhom jifmhu fl-arti, fix-xjenza u fil-filosofija meta pratikament kull ma jghamlu hija tahwida tahom fdaqqa biex johorgu konkluzjonijiet literalment stupidi.
dvella
May 18th 2010, 23:02
Norman Lowell on a TV program? comedy at it's best! Hope this guy is not serious! And the art surely will cost more then stated! Not even good to decorate a landfill!!!!!!
B. Cachia
May 18th 2010, 22:36
The Broadcasting Authority's clumsy and ill-advised intervention will only win Norman Lowell more votes and has already given him a lot more publicity than he otherwise would have got from the programme alone.
And if we're going to start banning hate-speech from tv shouldn't we apply that consistently, and ban all those who try to incite hatred - including class-hatred? Where would we draw the line though?
Joseph Micallef
May 18th 2010, 22:01
What worries me is that Lou Bondi was too diplomatic in his challanges and was quite feeble actually. Mr. Lowell is very capable of twisting his words to make himself seem right all the time - but Mr. Bondi was not up to scratch to overturn this tactic. One thing that was overlooked is the fact that Mr. Lowell kept repeating that he has to be under the influence of alcohol in order to create his "art"! Would any decent politician worth his salt publicly boast about such a thing? Another aspect that was overlooked is that while Lowell keeps calling the Maltese "moghoz" etc then he keeps boasting of Malta as being the chosen elite country etc - Mr.Bondi did hint at this but gave up too early. The problem with such programs might be that they are too structured in a way that they have to include ALL prepared features without leaving much space for any improvisation from the presenter.
David Seychell
May 18th 2010, 21:22
@A. Slater
"Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 14 countries..."
Forcing everybody to believe in this or that or else be punished is not a new idea is it?
Joseph Micallef
May 18th 2010, 22:03
Mr. Seychell - forcing everyone to believe facts cannot be bad can it?! I mean to deny things that happened is quite despicable to say the least!
Gervais Marcel Cishahayo
May 18th 2010, 22:18
Love and hate are said to be two faces of the same coin (human being): We all love or hate for several reasons and in the process choose our own heroes that we would emulate if we could!. Those who take lightly a person for whom Hitler is a hero and denies the haulocaust do not know how it feels like to be victimised and subjected to discriminatory and degrading persecution irrespective of the reason put forward. Those who were (or are still) victimised by their maltese compatriots for political (or othre) reasons should stand up and not let this scourge of intolerance proliferate again under the disguise of fight against (il)legal foreign invaders! As a media person, Lou Bondi did the right thing to stirr debate...its up to PBS and the political leadership to define and uphold the values that this nation is built upon.
James Cauchi
May 19th 2010, 13:16
Joseph Micallef - You don't honestly think that its a good thing to haul people to court or jail or end their professional lives or threaten their actual lives because they do not blindly and unquestionably accept the 'official viewpoint' of yourself or anybody else - do you?
Think about that logic being applied to anything else. It is blasphemy that led to discovering that the world is not flat. It is ridicule, pressure and a hostile environment that Galileo faced when positing that the world was not the center of the universe (in a time when 'the fact' was that it was so). The discoveries that went into concluding that Napolion died of poisoning were done in spite of the opposition of 'specialists' in the field.
I could easily mention more instances where 'the facts' as they were understood in the day no longer hold in the present day. My point is that it is a very dangerous stance to forbid and set up archaic consequences for the critical consideration of any event in history.
Incidentally the universal application of "truth protectionism" would result in a world where nothing remotely political may be discussed. Worth it?
Peter Paul Portelli
May 18th 2010, 21:16
Please when we going to grow up!!! when we going to live and let live!!! am pretty sure that today all tv are remote controlled...so all you who did not agree...what was needed a touch of a fingure and olaaa... another bullshit station!!! as for myself I simply did not bother to turn it on... but definately not against those who wanted freely to watch it... what tv is all about is popularity, ratings, money...
Joseph Micallef
May 18th 2010, 22:06
The problem is that I have got to know quite a lot who sympathise with Lowell - and these are not uneducated people but actually highly educated, academic individuals who one expects that are intelligent enough to see Mr. Lowell for the bluff (but dangerous person) he is. So actually, such a program with such feeble opposition from Mr. Bondi can do more harm than good!
Bernard Cachia Zammit
May 18th 2010, 21:10
Norman Lowell says that he is not a Neo-Nazi and yet his views are the same as those of the Nazis. He says that the Holocaust is a lie, that it never took place. Is this what we want to teach our children, that it is right to kill people, simply because they are different? How did the 6 million die then? Also, killing disabled people is also not right. Everyone has the right to live. This is could lead to a repetition of Action T4. It is our duty to remember every atrocity committed by man (including those committed by the Allies, examples Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Katyn). His racial views are ridiculous. This mentality should have been eradicated 65 years ago. A person's skin colour does not make any difference. What is important is the person's character.
This is not what we want for our future generations.
D.Frendo
May 18th 2010, 20:50
"Mr Bondi', Mr Fenech and legal counsel Therese Comodini Cachia, argued that their aim was to expose Mr Lowell "warts and all" "
Is that so? Or did PBS bend to Mr Bondi's insistence to invite Mr Lowell to boost his flagging ratings?! As some people wrote here, they never watch Bondi+ but that did watch it on that day.
The excuse for the show was Mr Lowell's book. But I thought Bondi+ was a current affairs programme. What's current about a book published at least two years before?!
Every right carries with it an obligation. Freedom of speech is only permissible as long as it does not break the law and the propagation of racial hatred is a criminal offence. It's for this same reason that blasphemy is not permissible on air.
I don't really blame Mr Bondi - he's in show business and is in it for the money. But PBS and its Editorial Board should have known better than to not only allow this show but to actually permit it to be broadcast live.
Richard Borg
May 19th 2010, 08:21
Why weren't these stupid arguments made when Xarabank allowed a gay person to criminalise our saint George Preca and throw dirt at our cathiolic religion by this down under aussiemalti? Why do some of our people want to shut Lowell's mouth when there are other mouths which should never be heard ever again in our homes. Yes we have the remote control and YES, I control what I see and what I hear. But there must not be two weights and two measures for other opinions.
S Farrugia
May 18th 2010, 20:12
The book has been sold out in Malta and can be bought from Amazon. Then some people can read exactly what he wrote and not keep inventing what is written.
j n ebejer
May 18th 2010, 19:46
Mr. Lowell's ideaology has been on, is still on and is being given even more support than ever. It is the ideology were some believe a society can somwhow benefit by having control on who how many, what condition one can be allowed to be born or live.
We have seen it in all the different cultures, ideologies and regimes- somethimes diametrically opposite to each other ideologically but practically promoting the same inhuman values.
When we accept such things we accept that our freedom to withhold values - which go beyond material or economical gains - will be suppressed. We would be accepting the dehumanisation of mankind, the becoming devoid of values which speak of protection of the more vulnerable, the appreciation of life in all it's form and the learning of a loving and caring society thruogh esteem of it's less imperfect members.
The choice is to accept or speak up against.
Christian Sciberras
May 19th 2010, 11:59
Here's an interesting question. Albert Einstein, renowned physicist, was...
imperfect. He had a grave mental disease.
Shouldn't we have executed the guy before late? But then, what about the brilliance and knowledge he gave the world?
I'm very curious to know you/people's reactions when they come to know about Norman contracting some disease or dying of cancer...
Martin Cassar
May 18th 2010, 19:31
@ A. Slater
Is this piece of law universal?
The USA dropped nuclear Bombs that killed thousands of innocent civilians in Japan. Should the USA response be classified as a self-defense, terrorism or committing crimes of genocide please?
Hitler Holocausted six million Jews (now, for six decades the Palestinians has been paying the price of others terrorism) …Should we take Germany to court? What do you suggest please?
Jesmond Micallef
May 18th 2010, 20:47
There are indeed "special" nations which have the "Emotional and Intellectual" means of judging fascism or nazism. Germany does not have such "Supreme Intellectual and Emotional" capacity. Remember who invented the "Nuremberg Principles". You may find it interesting that such "Special" nations believe in the principle of "If I do not exist, nobody and nothing else should". I'm so happy fascism is over..!!
Paul Borg
May 18th 2010, 19:25
I can only say one thing to Mr Bondi, Due to this ratings phenomenon everybody chases on TV, my son fell in love with mr Lowell and with his honesty in expression, my son is only 18 and he hates politics as it is now locally. How do you react to an unbiased mind, being exposed to such ideology. He is considering voting for Mr Lowell when the time comes, and probably so will I
Charles Sammut
May 18th 2010, 20:33
I have voted for Mr Lowell and survived. And I will vote for him as long as the PNPL tandem is in place.
Louis Gialanze
May 18th 2010, 19:16
Where's Everybody is a useful tool in the hands of a state which fears Norman Lowell redoubling his take of the vote much like Geert Wilders did in Holland!
A. Slater
May 18th 2010, 19:03
Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.
The European Union's Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia states that denying or grossly trivialising "crimes of genocide" should be made "punishable in all EU Member States
source: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
James Cauchi
May 18th 2010, 22:17
Why should anything presented as truth be deemed so holy as to be deemed illegal to contradict? Why should any "truth" require the services of legislated bullying and thuggery to uphold its sanctity?
Why can this particular episode in history not be treated as any other? Why do individuals who desire to research any aspect of it need to face ridiculous consequences?
What sort of "truth" requires a big stick to enforce and why?
- - - - -
Perhaps it is the 14 countries that you have referred to that should reconsider laws that are exceptional in nature and which serve to obstruct the natural free process of information.
Otherwise law and order will be doomed to reach its natural conclusion as the enforcer of a one-sided political representation. This is not compattible with true democracy.
P Agius
May 18th 2010, 22:46
Why shall anything that a person thinks be made illegal? Shall we make it illegal to deny the violence in Mintoff's era? Shall we make it illegal to deny the genocides that took place in the middle ages and in the crucades by direct orders of the popes? Why noone claim that the USA committed a genocide on Japan with it's atomic bombs?
Joe Fenech
May 20th 2010, 11:28
James Cauchi
SPOT ON!!
Why can't 'history' as transmitted to us by Mr X and Mr Y be challenged? Why are things so absolutist? How many events in history have been challenged and new facts discovered?
Frans Gauci
May 18th 2010, 18:49
I think that overall Bondi did a fair job of forcing Lowell to justify and explain his views. On the other hand I wish that Bondi would have challenged Lowell more forcefully on some points. I agree that it is important to hear Lowell's views, however abhorrent we may find them. At the same time, Lowell was ontv at the time of the MEP elections and he then said pretty much the same things. Why did Lowell need to be given the opportunity to give us his views all over again?
Martin Cassar
May 18th 2010, 18:35
I don’t mind what Norman Lowell says as long as he's kept away from ballot boxes. Actually I see his unique phraseology quite amusing!
The gentleman presents himself as a prophet, a savior and also sells himself as an artist. I would leave the latter to professional artists such as Kenneth Zammit Tabona to evaluate but here I ask, does Norman Lowell constitute a good politician? A leader? Certainly not.
Despite his banking background he miserably failed to mention one single word or offers any suggestion in connection with the current financial earth quake jolting ‘WHITE, SUPERIOR AND OLD EUROPE’!
The hardest thing to do in politics is to create interest in your party. Thanks to illegal immigrants, they proved this right. If we do not have illegal immigrants, what else Norman Lowell could talk about? Practically zilch!
Creating fear of all what is not white, and then selling yourself as the best person to handle this ‘danger’ has been an effective way for politicians to mobilize voters but not to give solutions.
My prophecy is that Norman Lowell will be prosecuted before presenting Malta in Brussels or even stepping his feet in Kastilja
Charles Sammut
May 18th 2010, 20:31
"I don’t mind what Norman Lowell says as long as he's kept away from ballot boxes."
What is your favourite brand of democracy, Mr Cassar?
Martin Cassar
May 19th 2010, 03:24
@ Charles Sammut,
sir,
Any environment under whatever name you choose (democracy, totalitarian, socialist, communists, liberals, secular, theocracy, left, right, .upside-down , green, red, blue, white…etc) that produce Hitler and or his ilk is evil, and in my books this is totally condemned without reservation. As regards you question, i think absolute democracy and absolute freedom freedom of expressions never existed anywhere in the world at any given point of time.
All democracies have fangs (Laws) for self-protection. If anybody think otherwise then dwelling in illusion I am afraid. This however is applicable on all countries USA, Europe, Zimbabwe’, China....etc.
Can you please mention just ONE SINGLE COUNTRY where absolute democracy and freedom of expression exists? I will take a note ......Thank you ;-)
Mario Aquilina
May 18th 2010, 18:31
I am not colour prejudice at all as I spent most of my life working and living amongst all different colours abroad, but I admire people like Norman Lowell who doesnt give two monkeys about what you and I think, and unlike most of you cowards out there, are too afraid to stand up, and be counted.
The media in Malta needs to be free and to be able to print all. You say you are free, but you are not. Control is the word that I'm looking for.
Lawrence Fenech
May 18th 2010, 18:30
Kemm ser iddumu turu programmi ta livel daqs hekk baxx.
JOe VELLa
May 18th 2010, 18:20
Sir,
Why it is only in Malta we have to be holier than the Pope?
I hope I am free to say, that I am one of those that do not watch Bondi+.
However, for a change I did see this program, considering the fact I am over 70, I believe I have the right to be allowed to watch a program if I want to, and have the liberty to change channel if I want to Without some puritan ordering what I see.
I follow foreign papers and when I read the comments posted full of hatred , I say we are treated like children by these conscious policy makers.
I taught we joined Europe to be open and free.
If this is how it is, let the young grow, because they are living in another dimension, and not in a four square box the way we were forced to think and grow.
Open up! be mature and see life as it is. The world is too big out there to continue closing us in.
Prosit Mr. Bondi!
alex calamatta
May 18th 2010, 17:58
1. "Lowell... interviewed on Bondi Plus... to show viewers who he really was". Yeah right and we should teach people that murder is wrong by killing someone OR that theft is bad by stealing people OR that rape is harmful by....
2. "Bondi said that after the programme he had not found anyone who could argue that Lowell position had been strengthened as a result of the interview". Can you tell us what kind of research you did Mr. Bondi? Did you call 1% of the population and ask them whether they tolerate black people more or less after your show?
3. "Dr. Cachia: one had to balance freedom of expression and public's right to know with freedom from discrimination". Can you define "public's right to know with freedom from discrimination"?
4. "Bondi: should one argue that one could not interview people whose views were found objectionable by the population at large, one could not even discuss abortion". There is a difference between debating something which is currently illegal in Malta such as abortion or drug use or making a TV program that simply promotes racist arguments with very weak opposition to such arguments
l.farrugia
May 18th 2010, 17:28
Jiena mhux soltu nara Bondfi plus imma dak in-nhar dħalt id-dar kmieni sabiex zgur ma nitilfux, ghalinqas neħħejt ftit dwejjaq peress li filghodu ircevejt kont kontu tad-dawl
Frans Gauci
May 18th 2010, 18:16
Ghandek biex tiftahar jekk biex tnehhi id-dwejjaq kellhek bzonn tisma min jitkellem b'dak il-mod. Nahseb li min ghandu tfal inkapacitati jew addottati ma tantx nehha dwejjaq malajr b'dak li sema minn ghand Lowell.
John Ebejer
May 18th 2010, 19:25
Ara mela veru ghandek hajja interessanti, mannnnnnnnn!
Jesmond Micallef
May 18th 2010, 17:28
The very last sentence of this article sums it all up really !! Journalism is all about exposition. With regards to small little man sad face moustache otherwise known as hitler, I challenge the Maltese public to come over to Germany and ban the NPD. Their argument is that neo nazism is not the same nazism as it was back then. I am all for democracy and freedom of expression and ideas but as a human being with emotions towards fellow human beings, I have my own well defined limits. At the top, is RACIAL HATRED. I cannot accept and digest that. I do not have the will to hurt a fellow human being, definitely not intentionally. Norman Lowell has a right to his own opinion and ideals, but I intentionally choose not to agree with him on certain mayor ideas of his. I liked his art, and maybe some truthful aspects of his background arguments but in Nürnberg a man called Julius Streicher was hanged but so was Leo Katzenberger.
Dr Francis Saliba
May 18th 2010, 17:10
Freedom of expression should stop short of broadcasting an incitement to a degree of racial discrimination and hatred that are frankly illegal. As a bare minimum the broadcaster should categorically and unequivocally dissociate himself from the illegality, immediately and not assume that all his audience would assume that.
Miguel Micallef
May 18th 2010, 17:22
Yet you seem to have no problem with giving air time to priests, who categorically seed hate against gays, against people who cohabit.... the list goes on.
As usual, agreement with freedom of speech is followed by the word 'but', which reduces the argument to zero.
Dr Franis Saliba
May 18th 2010, 22:57
It is a lie that I condone "seeding hate" against anybody by anybody. Those who hold and express a divergent opinion from you are not necessarily "seeding hate" although I appreciate the fact that there are contributors who seem unable to make that difference.
Miguel Micallef
May 19th 2010, 09:52
You have solved your own problem. If you don't like Norman's speeches, don't listen to them. Why can't you use the same reasoning you expect others to use, yourself? As priest's intention isn't to spread hate against gays when they speak against them in public, then how can you interpret Norman's words as spreading hate against black people?
I am in agreement of total freedom of speech. Even if offends me, I will just not listen, I do have trust in my intelligence to be able to decide what to listen and what not. Apparently not everyone has the same power.
charles spiteri
May 18th 2010, 16:50
fix wasal dan il pajjis? issa namlu sarima ma halqna fejna il liberta li konna niftahru bija ex pn
a attard
May 18th 2010, 17:03
Sur Charles Spiteri, mhiex kwistjoni ta dan il pajjiz. biss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8625543.stm
Louise Cassar
May 18th 2010, 17:42
@a attard
No, that's completely different. It was not the church or the TV programme that were fined for saying whatever the bishop said, but the bishop himself. So your case in point is totally irrelevant.
The case would be similar if someone who was affected, (such as a couple who adopted a child from abroad, or a biracial couple, or disabled people or assosciations of disabled people) took Norman Lowell to court for what he said, and not take Lou Bondi to court for what someone on his programme said.
I hope you can see this difference.
Guy Mahoney
May 18th 2010, 16:48
There are so many other made people around with all sorts of outrageous ideas and viewpoints; so on this basis are we to understand that PBS will be allowing them all airtime to express their views.
I would have thought that apart from entertainment the national station should have an educational role and not one of sheer and arrogant discriminating ideology.
I am sure Normal Lowell is enjoying the free publicity he is being given here.
Charles Sammut
May 18th 2010, 16:47
Next time round, Mr Bondi should invite an African illegal immigrant to appear with Norman Lowell and rebut his arguments. That would balance things out in the eyes of the dinosaurs.
All the other stations might as well shut down for that evening.
Neil Sant
May 18th 2010, 17:07
That's the best suggestion I've heard about this debate.
Alfred Vella
May 18th 2010, 17:29
charles I dont care about foreigners. I only care about my countrymen and no one else. How dare you invite a foreigner to our country to rebut Norman's arguments? How lackey and low can one be?
Charles Sammut
May 18th 2010, 18:44
@ alfred vella
I am not particularly fond of these uninvited guests myself. But I know that Mr Lowell will not pussyfoot around their lame arguments and will put to rest, once and for all, their mostly hollow claims.
Jeremy Brown
May 18th 2010, 21:02
@charles Sammut,
well said I agree with you 100%. He should have invited a person or a representative to debate the issue and defend themselves.Thats how it should be.
Sean Grima
May 19th 2010, 10:44
if anyone is a dinosaur, it is lowell.
g.c.Forte
May 18th 2010, 16:47
@ Mr Lou Bondi.............Was it you that led Mr. Norman Lowell to have a live program ? So, what do you expect .Mr. Norman Lowell had the right to express his views. You are the one responsible, because you knew of how Mr. Lowell see things.
D Hamilton
May 18th 2010, 16:47
Id like to know how many hits this programme had. How many viewers saw the programme. Sharing or not sharing Norman Lowells point of view is irrelevant in my question. As soon as I heard there is Norman Lowell I turned on PBS. He surely is one hell of an entertainer. If you dont like his views just change channel. Id really like to now how many views the programme had !!! Can anyone answer??
A. Mamo
May 18th 2010, 16:37
Mr Bondi, you are right as always. There is no need to justify yourself..... lol
G.Micallef
May 18th 2010, 16:35
"one had to balance freedom of expression and the public's right to know with freedom from discrimination."
Mr Lowell expresses sheer xenophobia and hatred not freedom of expression! Hello!!!
Christian Sciberras
May 19th 2010, 11:55
Balance indeed!
Dr Mark A. Sammut
May 18th 2010, 16:32
Dr Commodini Cachia is absolutely right.
Furthermore, what is wrong with broadcasting the ideas (even if despicable) of someone who was accepted as a candidate for a public office?
Christian Sciberras
May 19th 2010, 11:56
Yes, we all want to do some money and what best way then to present the public with some melodrama!