Minister Helena Dalli, whose grasp of employment law has already been demonstrated by the manner in which her ministry saw fit to treat the Industrial Tribunal, has let it be known that convicted criminal Cyrus Engerer is to remain engaged by the ministry.

This is because "the Courts have spoken" and he has paid the price of his mistake.

Let us analyse this, shall we?

The price paid, according to what Ms Dalli went on to say, is that Engerer has foregone his quest to be elected to the European Parliament. 

Notice, if you will, what Dr Dalli classifies as the price payable for criminal activity: having to give up political activity.  No mention, at least as reported, of the punishment imposed by the Court of Appeal or such-like.   No, what is important is that Engerer's political aspirations have been modified.

With such priorities are our ministers concerned, not with the small matter of crime and punishment resulting from a series of acts that included misuse of telecommunications, abuse of trust and cyber-bullying with gross homophobic overtones.

"It was a matter between two individuals", also said our minister, leading me to wonder whether if I were to step out and thump the next passerby, she wouldn't excuse me too, since that also would be a matter between two individuals. 

Somehow, I doubt it.

Seriously, this craven defence of a bully and sneak, who used tactics that are typical of a redneck homophobe (what else would you call using a person's homosexuality to demean him?) is shameful.   Lino Spiteri, usually a thoughtful writer, does the same, failing to condemn Engerer unequivocally, instead pontificating on the way the matter was turned into a political issue.

Spiteri is partly right, truth be told because, as well as being a criminal issue, it is also a political issue, in fact, with ramifications far beyond the immediate.

For instance, why have the LGBT lobby manifestly failed to condemn the Government's defence of Engerer? 

Imagine the boot had been on the other foot, there would have been a cacophony at which to marvel. 

So what political implications are to be drawn from the fact that when it's a Labour politician involved, the silence is deafening?  Some pigs are, indeed, more equal than others, and I hope no-one will be offended by my comparing Engerer to pigs.

For another instance, the PM, in his defence of Engerer, and typically, said that there were two Nationalist MPs who have criminal issues in their past. 

One has become public and his "crime" - like the PM's two cents - is a joke of the utmost puerility.    The other remains unknown and the Nationalist Party has let it be known that no-one has any idea what the PM was talking about. 

So what political implications are to be drawn from the fact that in order to defend Engerer to the hilt, the PM is not ashamed to be ridiculous and to say something that - as at the time of writing this - appears to have no basis in fact?