The Republic of Mellieha
In the 1980s the Republic of Zejtun was established in the south of Malta. It was perhaps more akin to anarchy than to a republic. Its citizens were exempt for the laws that bound the rest of us. If they felt that they were provoked they could resort to violence with impunity. They also had the right to decide what constituted provocation. Being a Nationalist, or speaking as a Nationalist or speaking in favour of a Nationalist was provocation enough. You could be beaten or shot at. If you were lucky the police would stay at bay; if you were unlucky the police would join in the fun. It was their duty not to let the dastardly Nationalists provoke the gentle inhabitants of the Republic of Zejtun.
The brouhaha that characterised that Republic was condemned by many, including sincere Labourites. These were shocked that the name of their party was being degraded by these criminals. While the Labour administration of that period was unable or unwilling to control them, the administration of Dr Alfred Sant rid the Partit Laburista of these nefarious elements. The country moved on in the belief that civility demands that differing political persuasions should never be considered to be provocation.
That, however, was not the end of the provocation/intolerance story. Gender orientation has taken over from politics as a “cause” of provocation.
The Courts have just declared the setting up of the Republic of Mellieha. “Thou shalt not call thy neighbour gay” is its basic commandment. If you do, it would constitute provocation of the first degree. This has to be treated harshly. You deserve to be run over by a car and face the rest of your life with a physical impairment. Unfortunately as things stand now the person meting out this justice will not be publicly given any award. The ignoramuses in the surrounding Republic of Malta would consider this to be over the top. So the citizens of the Republic of Mellieha had to lump it and give a little slap on the wrist to whoever reacts to provocation with the desired harshness.
A lot has been written on the subject so I will not add more.
There is another kind of provocation which can earn one the privilege of being beaten black and blue. This we were told by Dr Josie Muscat is originated by women. Men suffer so much agony that they cannot not react. Now I have no doubt that Dr Muscat is totally against domestic violence and that he truly condemns it and abhors it. However, the way he spoke, perhaps to create a stir during an otherwise placid discussion was, to say the least, very unfortunate.
During TVHemm I reminded Dr Muscat that he had been, on more than one occasion, the victim of violence at the Republic of Zejtun. He and his friends were even shot at. One of them had to be hospitalised in London to have a bullet removed from his brain. Dr Muscat’s very existence as a Nationalist MP was considered by the bullies at Zejtun to be provocation enough.
The provocation/intolerance story had another episode during summer.
We almost had the setting up of the Republic of Marsaxlokk. Like that of Zejtun and Mellieha this would have been a republic based on the fight against provocation. During the summer some people decided to camp on Marsaxlokk’ beaches. Some Neanderthals infiltrated their ranks. This pre-Homo Sapiens species is particularly sensitive to any sort of provocation. This came in the form of a peaceful walk by a few Marsaxlokk residents who had the temerity to think that it was their right that their bay would not be turned into a dump by Neanderthals. The end of that story is history.
As I said during TVHemm whoever resorts to violence does not do so because of provocation but because he/she generallty is an intolerant savage.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
34 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Michael Farrugia
Nov 3rd 2012, 19:00
......emmmmm wasslet l-ellezjoni jaqaw?? ser nibdew inzeffnu t-80ijiet fin-nofs?? Kif dejjem irid jizzeffen dan il-perjodu fi zmien l-elezzjoni?? Insejna x'kien jigri fis-60ijiet?
R Axisa
Oct 19th 2012, 09:01
Fl-ewwel paragrafu gabar liz-Zwieten kollha f'keffa wahda - anzi aghar minn hekk iddeskriva lil-laburisti bhala n-nies il-hziena u lin-nazzjonalisti bhala 'the gentle inhabitants'. Bhala bniedem intellettwali kont nistenna ahjar minnu. Infakkru biss li anki l-Malti jghid li kull razza ghandha l-paljazza and ghandu jitlob skuza lil dawk iz-Zwieten ta' rieda tajba, li kien u ghadu mimli bihom.
Joseph Micallef
Oct 31st 2012, 12:31
Fhimtu hazin xbin. "gentle inhabitants" qed tirreferi ghaz-Zwieten!
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Oct 15th 2012, 14:16
@ Joseph Carmel Chetcuti :
"In New South Wales, a parliamentary committee has heard that the partial defence of provocation is allowing some male offenders to get away with murder. The inquiry was prompted by an outcry over the sentencing of Sydney man, Chamanjot Singh, for slitting his wife's throat with a box cutter". In Australia he was jailed for six years for intentional murder !!!!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 15th 2012, 09:45
Can't imagine an Australian court, or for that matter any court of a civilised jursidiction, reaching such a decision. And for the record I read what the Magistrate had to say. The point is that a Magistrate need not accept what is put to him especially if it is unreasonable. Perhaps a transcript of what was said in court should be made available. Is that too much to expect from Malta's courts?
P. Ciantar
Oct 14th 2012, 22:19
exellent article well said
Jessica Debattista
Oct 14th 2012, 19:50
Violence can never be condoned.
So it stands to reason that public opinion would favour the Australian who was run over. However, character assassination is not to be brushed off lightly........
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Oct 14th 2012, 23:25
Violence is never to be condoned, but it must be seen in its proper perspective according to the circumstances of the case. All laws, even natural law, give the right to self defence, for example. One may kill and still walk free. What the actual facts were has been distorted in the press. He was not run over.
Franco Farrugia
Oct 15th 2012, 11:23
What a stupid comment this is! 'Character assassination' because you imply that someone is gay? Is this the Christian mentality that you profess to have? Yes, madam, once again you have put your foot in it!
Jessica Debattista
Oct 15th 2012, 17:14
@ Franco Farrugia: Dear Franco, to me it makes no difference. But apparently, to the accused the term “gay” accompanied by whatever else rose his bile, was offensive enough to warrant very drastic retaliation. Ask him if he considered it character assassination.
Joseph Micallef
Oct 31st 2012, 12:34
If you were a non believer or let's say a muslim or a bhuddist...and someone called you Catholic...would you consider that character assassination? Or are you attributing negative connotations with being gay? Is it a disgrace to be gay maybe - according to you - when there should be no discrimination whatsoever over sexual orientation?! What character assassination?!!
Joseph Micallef
Oct 31st 2012, 12:36
Ms. Debattista - then you are referring to the person's ignorance not character assassination! Ignorance is no excuse. What if calling me Chatholic offended me?
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Oct 14th 2012, 19:16
Fr Joe, you missed the Republic of Cottonera. Before 1976 a Nationalist candidate used to surround himself with many undesirable, violent characters, who resorted to intimidation not only of Labour supporters but also of supporters of a fellow Nationalist candidate. Even Dr Ugo Mifsud Bonnici was a victim !
Paul Azzopardi
Oct 13th 2012, 21:23
If you are gay and are described as such it should not be an offense. If you are not and called a gay it is also OK, you just correct the mistake. The same applies for heterosexuals. Both "gay" and "square" can be used offensively or not, but so can "dog", "bitch", "hot", "lost", "appetite", "zokkor", even "happy". It depends how words are used and the circumstances, that's why we have judges.
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Oct 13th 2012, 23:22
The journalists were not present when all the evidence was heard...... It was not a mere word. There was taunting and more ! The evidence showed that there was an invasion of the friendly, private environment of the bar, patronized by locals. No one was expecting such insolence. I think I know better than Fr Joe and his fellow journalists. Evarist Saliba, by the way, is right and very much
Andy Farrugia
Oct 14th 2012, 11:43
@ Dr Joe Brincat
I do not wish to comment on this case as I am not aware of all the particulars but I have read your comment carefully. I believe you are right about the media today. Tragically, journalists and columnists today are only interested in hedge, fudge, spin, twist, weave and distortion. A pity and a real shame.
charles caruana
Oct 14th 2012, 15:19
@Joe Brincat-LL.D
Whatever the provocation, including taunting, 'invasion', insolence - these can never justify anyone who makes a barbaric attempt on a man's life, leaving him permanently impaired, much less getting away with it with a ludicrously light sentence. And the judge's justification of it was equally absurd. It has set a dangerous precedent.
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Oct 14th 2012, 19:13
@ Mr Caruana. Your statement is not correct. The Attorney General, having all the evidence before him, decided that the individual should not continue to answer to the original charge of attempted murder. On the charge sheet, filed by the police, it remains there. Had it remained an attempted murder charge, the case would have gone before a jury. Don't speak of attempted murder.
Eric Soames
Oct 14th 2012, 21:30
Joe Brincat-LL.D: Sorry Counsellor, but isn't even legitimate self defense sometimes prosecuted as attempted manslaughter if the reactive action exceeds the offensive? One is supposed to use only enough force to parry an attack, let alone react so unequally after the event. It's only police officers who have the right to 'step it up' in a confrontation.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 15th 2012, 09:36
I think we all know what sort of evidence is presented in Maltese courts. Was there any evidence from the victim? Even if the evidence is as described by Joe Brincat, it is totally unreasonable for one to use force and run over a person and take the law into their own hands. Perhaps not in civilised Malta.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 15th 2012, 09:39
Is it not the case that Maltese courts take eight bloody years to reach a decision and then use the delay against the victim as is set out in the judgment? So what if we are not privy to the evidence Dr Brincat? We go by what is said in the decision. It is absurd and no lawyer worth his or her salt should be defending such a judgment. There is something very rotten in the state of Maltese courts.
charles caruana
Oct 16th 2012, 11:41
@ Joe Brincat-LL.D
Both Attorney Generals and Judges have been known to make absurd mistakes in their assessment of evidence. Can they really ascertain that running a man down with a deadly weapon like a car was nicely calculated by the perpetrator to just maim and not kill the victim? He could have killed him. Such violence can never be 'justified' by a such an absurd suspended sentence.
Joseph Micallef
Oct 31st 2012, 13:43
Dr. Brincat. Since being Gay is not something shameful, then why should it be considered an offence...in any way and in any circumstance?!
silvio loporto
Oct 13th 2012, 19:11
Why do persons like you, have to bring politics in everything?
We deserve a break.
I think you should devote youself to much more important things, like for example try and do something about the ever increasing number of families nearing the poverty line. Or is this not any more the mission of the clergy?
Andy Farrugia
Oct 13th 2012, 21:51
"I think you should devote youself to much more important things, like for example try and do something about the ever increasing number of families nearing the poverty line."
WHAT? That's politics with a capital P! I think you're a bit confused.
B Ellul
Oct 15th 2012, 15:19
Why do you keep on coming to these pages then?
Emmanuel Cachia
Oct 13th 2012, 16:44
Qabel ir-Republika taz-Zejtum kien hemm ukoll ir-Republika tal-Mizbla fejn nies tad-dinjla kienu jiggudikaw l-erwieh min din id-dinja.
Peter Murray
Oct 13th 2012, 16:29
The" gay-free" Democractic Republic of Mellieha-just like its counterpart in Africa the D.R.of the Congo.As in both cases they are neither democratic nor a republic!How ironic that Mellieha has the only recognised CAMP site in Malta
Evarist Saliba
Oct 13th 2012, 16:11
The reproduction of what the court said in the Mellieha case is a travesty which is not justified. Equally, calling a person who uses violence (except in self defence) as savage and intolerant while implyting that provocation plays no part, is too simplistic.
Joseph Micallef
Oct 31st 2012, 13:47
Ok so call me gay and I am entitled to run you over with my car? Is that justified then? Does provocation excuse any resulting action - of any magnitude it may be?
Eric Soames
Oct 13th 2012, 14:45
The 80s? That's a long meander to make a topical point Reverend.
J Martinelli
Oct 13th 2012, 14:17
Spot on, in all respects.
Joe Brincat-LL.D
Oct 13th 2012, 13:10
Fr Borg, as a journalist, you take what you read in the press as "gospel truth". The Mellieha case was more than just calling someone gay.
G Schembri
Oct 14th 2012, 14:14
Whatever the provocation - no one has the right to take the law into his/her hands, unless it's in self defence.
Please choose the reason of your report below: