There is no connection between the welcome visit to Malta by the Emir of Qatar and the man described, praised and pilloried in the controversial film Dear Dom. Or, is there?

Perhaps Lawrence Gonzi was influenced by grey memories of his predecessors who saw fit to blacken Malta’s name abroad during the 1970s and 1980s Labour period- Lino Spiteri

Dom Mintoff had made it a basic characteristic of his way of running Malta to try to establish close relations with the Arab world. He did so as a matter of principle, but also for utilitarian purposes.

Mintoff depicted Malta for what it was – a small country that needed foreign direct investment as well as financial aid to enable it to get on its feet and start running without falling flat on its face.

He lobbied for both, and to a considerable extent successfully so.

Mintoff attracted direct investment (mostly from Libya) and oil supplies at below market prices (again, from Libya), plus convertible currency loans on soft terms from various Arab countries.

At the time he was criticised for doing this and accused of turning Malta into a beggar country by his Nationalist opponents.

Now a Nationalist government is resorting to the same tactics. There are reports that it will attempt to get oil at below market prices from Libya, and gas on similar terms from Qatar.

The Prime Minister, in his meeting with the Emir, also promoted Malta as a very suitable place for investment by Qatar.

Lawrence Gonzi was right to do so and is also correct in seeking subsidised gas and oil. May his efforts succeed. There is grim irony in them, certainly. But there is also proof of growing up.

Mintoff, whatever his many failings, was not as crazy and irresponsible as his detractors still make him out to be. Those who recognise that will be glad the wheel has turned full circle in his lifetime, even if feebleness in his very old age is a queer source of warped satisfaction and merriment to some of those who hate him.

Speaking of Libya, my view that the start of the general election run-up has marked the opening of the silly season, expressed in The Times on Monday, is well supported by evidence.

That includes the extraordinary cold warning by Gonzi to Joseph Muscat, who was on a visit to meet Libya’s transiting leaders, that he had better not try to spoil the good relations between the two countries.

How mindless and petty can Gonzi get, general election or not. Perhaps he was influenced by grey memories of his predecessors who saw fit to blacken Malta’s name abroad during the Labour period of the 1970s and 1980s.

Then as now any foolish politician who plays such dirty tricks effectively throws a boomerang which returns to hit and haunt him. If leading politicians cannot accept that their love for Malta must come first and foremost, it is no wonder that the country is so riven with division, even hatred, among the people.

Political statements like that made by Gonzi concerning Labour and Libya are beneath contempt.

• We sometimes wonder what the difference is between the law and justice. Are they the same thing? If not, shouldn’t they be? There is no clear answer but, now and again, we are reminded where the difference lies: the law does not necessarily guarantee justice, not even when it is applied in what we all refer to as the Court of Justice.

That was brought home on Wednesday with the judgment throwing out the Attorney General’s appeal against a decision effectively to exempt a former priest from the full rigours of the law in a sex abuse case because of an error in the charge regarding where the alleged abuse took place.

To simple lay people wherever a crime or misdemeanour takes place if the accused is proven to be guilty of the act, s/he should be punished as such.

Not so in terms of law, as defence counsel successfully pleaded, as was her responsibility to do by virtue of her role. The appeals judge rejected the Attorney General’s argument on the ground that the error in the charge document could have been corrected while the trial was in progress.

On his part the Attorney General brought forward arguments that seem perfectly logical to the uninitiated in legal affairs, including the overall consideration that, submitting there was an error in the charge sheet could have opened a can of legal worms, possibly leading to time-barring of all the accusations.

The appeal was turned down on a legal point totally unrelated to the demands of justice. I raise this issue not because I would have felt any joy had the Attorney General won his appeal leading to the accused receiving a stiffer sentence.

Bad or heinous as one’s crime may be, the greatest punishment lies in the way it marks the perpetrator, not in proving that the law can indeed be an ass.

I should add that original court judgment (in the accused’s trial) is subject to appeal.