Sunday, 21st June 2009
BECAUSE IT'S YOU
Any use of physical violence - or even moral violence - is reprehensible and should be condemned out of hand, obviously. I know this remark will leave me open to the Lil'Elves, who will come over all smug and prattle about how this blog and my column on Saturday is nothing more than moral violence directed towards Labour supporters. They think this is a fine debating point, in the face of which I will slink off, crying to mommy. The recently-resurrected Jo (girl's name, I keep saying) Said was particularly eager to use this imagined spark of intelligence, as were a number of other fine exemplars of the art of Elfin Erudition.
I've even been called racist by them because of my writing, so you can see where they're coming from. All I can say to this is, if you think that way, it's your problem, not mine.
The fact remains that violence is to be condemned, without reservation. It can sometimes be understood, if there are circumstances that constitute provocation, for instance, or if the defence of ideas or the vulnerable is involved, but very often, the provocation excuse is nothing more than that: a banal excuse, often resorted to by those who have a very poor grasp of the rights and wrongs of a given situation.
So it is without reservation that I condemn the people who thought that a few good thumps was a proper way to solve the problem they seem to have had with Mr and Mrs Charlon Gouder in a club on Friday night. I don't know the ins and outs of the situation, of course, other than that reported in the paper, though it seems that a political tinge was given to the affair.
This was because one or both of the blokes who did the thumping (or who had their fists assaulted by Mr Gouder's head, as no doubt their defence counsel will eventually be tempted to plead) thought they should accompany their physical intervention with a verbal one, calling all manner of imprecations down on Mr Gouder, using that which he holds dear, the Labour Party, as a condiment to add flavour to the insults.
In other circumstances, maternal ancestry or female siblings might have been invoked, but this time it was the Labour Party and Mr Gouder's fealty thereto.
This all led to a bit of a stir within the commenting classes, many of whom seem to have been somewhat annoyed that the Nationalist Party didn't immediately issue a statement of condemnation or something like that.
Why should it have? Were the circumstances of the attack overtly political? The fact that Mr Gouder is a High Panjandrum within the Labour hierarchy doesn't make everything that happens to him a political issue, for all that the assault was condemnable. He wasn't assaulted in the carrying out of his political duties, or while voting or something, was he? If the Nationalists had come out with a statement condemning this incident, they would have had to come out with one every time there's a bar-fight in Paceville or every time someone succumbs to road-rage.
Which would strain the party's already meagre resources somewhat, would it not?
It's understandable that Labour's commenting machine should get on its collective high horse, of course: the incident at Zejtun during voting, for all that they played it down, was an overtly political incident, though it was merely a blip in the otherwise impeccable recent record of the Labour Party (although for those of us of a certain age, memories were evoked that we would have rather left dormant) By getting all hot under the collar about Gouder's incident, the Lil'Elves betrayed their own disquiet at the Zejtun one, though, which is a whole ‘nother story.
All I can say is, I hope the cops prosecute the yobs who whacked Gouder with the full vigour of the law, just as I hope they do the same to any git who thinks he (and it's usually a he) can let fly whenever he likes. But let's have less sanctimony just because the poor victim was part of a political machine, as he has every right to be.
Similarly, I confess to something of an ambivalence over the fuss being made about the Bahrija affair, in which a PN High Panjandrum, this time, is involved.
To be clear: if the permit was issued abusively or in breach of the applicable regulations or whatever, then let it be cancelled immediately if not sooner and if anyone messed up, there should be consequences and no mistake.
But, on the other hand, if the thing went through as it should and if some of the environmental activists (who seem to have been looking elsewhere when the public consultation process took place) are now turning up the heat just because the applicant is a Big Beast in the PN menagerie, then that's wrong too. Victor Scerri has rights, just like any other citizen, and that includes the right to benefit legitimately from the way the system works.
RSS
Comments
>The violence of the 50s could only have come (and did) from one source ....
>The NP never attacked Labour clubs, the opposition leaders' private properties, the Times, the Courts, the Curia etc.
You can deny as much as you wish.
However:
- efa's words,
the images of stones, ballustrades etc being thrown by PN supporters
- from PN clubs,
- the molotovs,
- grenades,
-guns
etc etc
as well as our personal history, show that the truth is not with you on this one.
As above, deny as much as you wish.
But the truth is there for all to see, even if people like you go to unbelievale lengths to deny it.
So be it.
But until you carry on denying the truth... if you can't accept the past, how on earth can you even start to comprehend the present...all the way from the "good, old" US??
Yes sure, go tell those words to Karen Grech's family.
Very sad attempt at denying facts, twisting the truth, avoiding my questions and a feeble attempt at justifying the violence by the MLP and its thugs of the 70s and 80s.
The violence of the 50s could only have come (and did) from one source - the MLP just after Mintoff ousted Boffa and formed the MLP. We remember those years quite well. The NP never attacked Labour clubs, the opposition leaders' private properties, the Times, the Courts, the Curia etc.
NP governments never looted banks, imposed import quotas, discouraged owning a computer and neither expelled dedicated women providing valuable health related services such as the Blue sisters.
Come on Ivan, clutching at straws is getting to be quite nauseating
Its orrajt, it was only self defense. You don’t believe that? Ask 40% of the population that voted PN,some of them are still convinced.
- the third area of voilence was instigated by those few who thought that they were "untouchables" and that "might is right".
Again, for us to deny this section is as wrong as you denying the first two sections and (trying) to paint that:
- violence was ONLU one sided
- out of proportion and not in equal amounts from/on both sides.
- the first two sections NEVER happened (you NEVER mention them!)
Your conclusion tyherefore is that all LP/MLP/Left wing/ Anything 'non-blue' automatically belongs to the third section.
Even when you (conveniently) just stick to the 3rd section, you ONLY mention the left winged 'might is right' block!
You will, of course, deny that there is ANY right winged 'might is right' mentality (let alone voilence!!).
And THIS (in my oppinion) is your fundamental mistake: you deny reality and you try to tell us your twisted version of reality.
How sad.
Without realising, you are coming to my way of thinking:
1)I do NOT "deny an individual's right to defend himself when faced with an aggressor".
Quite the opposite. I merely asked il-bocca to clarify his position on the matter.
2)I'm utterly convinced that a lot of what happened in the 70's/80's can be divided into 3 distinct areas:
-a natural reaction to the violence practiced in the 50s/60s on many thousands of labourites was to 'kick back' once the (power) boot was on the other foot. Tooth4Tooth etc.
You (and GDM) may deny as much as you wish that the right winged voilence practiced on the left wing was 'negligent'.
We however KNOW otherwise....
-there was a systematic&planned right winged orgy of violence/civil disobedience in order to destabilise the govt of the time.
hear efa's words over and over. Then translate "xi ftit armi" to :
-the hand grenades,
-molotovs,
-the machine guns etc in the pics
look at the list of BOMBINGS that took place which even led to murder
(we all remember efa telling us that he knew who was behind Karen's murder right?)
Will you at least ADMIT that this took place...?
Without accepting the accuracy of EFA's statement, I ask you:
1. When the NP knew very well that the MLP and it's thugs were armed, are you surprised that it would try to defend itself? (assuming that EFA's statement was fact)
2. Were the arms used?
3. How many Raymond Caruanas of the MLP were murdered by Nationalist supporters?
4. You mention the odd act of violence by individual Nationalist supporters, why not mention the government backed violence against thousands with shots and tear gas fired on unarmed individuals who had a police permit to hold a meeting at tal-Barrani?
Violence is never condoned coming from whatever source, but please do not deny an individual's right to defend himself when faced with an aggressor. I don't expect that someone would defend himself with his bare hands when facing a shotgun in his face.
The problem with you and the (M)LP is that for every one incident by a Nationalist supporter you multiply it by a thousand but when faced by thousands of violent incidents by Laburisti, you promptly tell us to forget the past!
Nationalist governments never encouraged violence and the last 22 years are ample testimony.
The case made headlines in the Times and till this day it is used as a case study by the law faculty at our University.
To try to portary that violence was ONLY one sided is downright deceitful and only reflects badly on those claiming so and playing virgin white victims under tyrannical rule...etc.
There are those of us who suffered voilence in the 70/80 's BECAUSE we are labourites by nationalists.
take a look at:
http://www.maltapolitics.com/vjolenzanazzjonalista.htm
and try to justify this.
Of note:
A) Dr. Fenech Adami waqt dibattitu fuq it-television.....qabel l-elezzjoni tal-1987 kien qal:
“KIEN HEMM PERSUNA RESPONSABLI U TA' MIN JIRRINGRAZZJAHA LI WARA L-ELEZZJONI, META SAR JAF LI KIEN HEMM DAN IN-NUMRU LIMITAT TA' ARMI …GHALAQHOM F'KAXXA MAGHLUQA . . . TISTA TIMXI B'MOD AKTAR RESPONSABBLI BHAL DAN?”
B) Du Puis's speech
C) Rakkont fil-qosor ta’ vittma Laburista, Charles J. Buttigieg, The Times 14.4.2007 (as found guilty in court)
There you have it: PN Violence.
Physical and mental.
It happened.
Get over it.
You don't hear us using it in EVERY argument in order to justify anything anti PN.
The REAL question, however is whether violence is ALWAYS "reprehensible and should be condemned out of hand" or whether it can sometimes be "understood" (and therefore acceptable)??
And the silence/omerta is deafening...
@Chris Ripard: Which part did you not understand ?
;)
You repeatedly refer to the 70`s and the 80`s simply because you know nothing else.
‘The NP supporters specify FACTS and have an endless list of violence, corruption, incompetence, clientelism, nepotism, injustice..and the list goes on.’
'The LP supporters such as you, have nothing but ALLEGATIONS, INNUENDOES, and UNFOUNDED SUSPICIONS'
Did you read the news about what happened within the VAT Department lately? And what about the corruption within ADT in relation to issue of licenses? Oh yes, have you hared about the issue of boat licenses a few months ago?
Did you read the comments of Dr. John Dalli, Dr. Austin Gatt, etc in relation to the inefficiencies of their relative Departments?
Oh I guess you might have read them but chose to ignore them!
You keep stating that, "What the PN has been hiding under its carpets must one day come in the open". I can assure you that the day will never come because there is no dust or dirt under the carpet, for, who else but the PL would not take advantage of specifying the 'dirt' they talk so much about?
The NP supporters specify FACTS and have an endless list of violence, corruption, incompetence, clientelism, nepotism, injustice..and the list goes on.
The LP supporters such as you, have nothing but ALLEGATIONS, INNUENDOES, and UNFOUNDED SUSPICIONS.
So, instead of constantly reminding us of your past dark history by your own party's present behaviour, you should perhaps be a bit more progressive in your and your party's thinking and join the majority who are tired of your same old carps, moans, gloom and foreboding which spell NEGATIVITY.
You had a blank white page to start fresh a year and a bit ago but you chose to remain the same and worse, you imported individuals from the dark days you so ardently want to obliterate, and gave them important positions within your 'new' party - il-Partit tal-LE.
Please don't go back to the 50s since they were the forerunners of what was to come in the 70s and 80s under the same party government.
Are you not old enough to remember the setting fires and looting of police stations, the violence at the dockyards and the general mayhem of the 50s?
We mention the 70s and 80s because there are many too young to remember the 50s but the likes of me are old enough to remember the 50s, the take over of the Workers' Party, the suspension of Self Government and other unpleasantness sparked by none other than the fledgling Labour Party.
Of course the PN's or better GonziPN's propoganda machine demonstrates daily the above.
They are experts in twisting of facts, manipulation of events, half truths and misinformation.
@ laurence schembri ...Rewriting our political history is s big MUST! What the PN has been hiding under its carpets must one day come in the open. There is too much dirty dust there. Truth will certainly prevail soon.
What the PN is delivering to its followers is condemnable. Misinformimg your own followers is never acceptable.
"If you need further clarification or the interpretation of a law, hire a lawyer."
I think literacy is all that is required to understand the law. If the law is not clear to the general population then its not written well.
Joseph did win with a landslide of 55% but he's not the PM,the Boss is still Laurence and you should address your proposal to him and let us know what he replies.
I agree with you: if the elected MEPs overspent they should resign and not be allowed to contest future elections. In fact, If the candidates overspent, the elections were invalid and should be annulled and held again. Let's wait and see if Joseph Muscat proposes it. If not he should be held responsible for an "Erosion of Democracy" resulting in a "Democratic Deficit".
We. THE PEOPLE have spoken !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is it because his comments always meander about all over the place - without actually getting anywhere?
Mine, was not a legal question but a pure political one because everyone can see what has been done to the law, it was bypassed. :)
Everything is in subject in this blog, even the question if lawyers can cook.... :)
Would the article (just a question) have been more laughable had ABC stated that 'the little brat had it coming'? I am not implying anything here, just wondering out loud what Rene Joseph found so hilarious.
@ Stephen Farrugia
Your question is out of topic but I am quite sure that if ABC had the least inclination to reply, he would tell you that there are regulations and consequences regarding overspending and if anyone, from either party could be proven to have overspent, such penalties would be applied.
If you need further clarification or the interpretation of a law, hire a lawyer.
If voilence " can sometimes be understood, if there are circumstances that constitute:
- provocation, ...
- or the defence of ideas
- (if defence of) the vulnerable is involved,"
but yet, at the same time, "The fact remains that violence is to be condemned, without reservation."
Should one BE or NOT BE violent in order to:
- defend the weak and powerless (at the hands of of the strong and powerful with the "might is right and 'never-mind you, Jack' " mentality) ,
- defend an ideology (Democracy, Christianity, Islam etc)
- or under provocation.(plenty of these cases one can refer to, no doubt)
In these circumstances, should we remain sitting with our hands firmly under our backsides as "violence is to be condemned, without reservation" or should we maintain that each man has a right to defend himself under the above scenarios (and more)?
Is il-Bocca suggesting that violent self-defense is always inexcusable, suggesting that it can be "understood" (and therefore excused) or is he merely sitting on the fence once more....?
Should the MEP's that overspent in their last election , resign?