|
Dr Tonio Borg, the bland, conservative deputy leader of the Nationalist party has made some deleterious remarks against the Maltese Greens.
They are not only unexpected but ridiculous and deeply hypocritical.
Yesterday, Dr Borg talked of the Greens wanting to increase taxes on the environment, forgetting that the EPP the bloc that brings together a mixture of rightists, populists and euro sceptics has a sentence in their manifesto about the need to introduce eco-taxes.
His second remark was about abortion and divorce. Again Dr Borg referred to the Greens, pretending to forget that the political parties that are in the EPP were the ones who not only supported abortion and divorce, but in many cases introduced abortion and divorce in their own countries.
Dr Borg is obviously panicking about the Green vote. And yes, the Nationalist party has always panicked about the Green vote, succeeding each time so far – but perhaps not this time? - in dissuading voters casting their vote for the Greens.
Dr Borg’s latest comment this Friday about the Greens was not only stupid but downright farcical.
He said that the Greens are against ‘nuclear deterrent’. Since when has nuclear deterrence been an issue in the European parliament?
Is Dr Borg serious? Has he forgotten that his party agreed with Mr Mintoff for the inclusion of a neutrality clause in the Constitution?
And what does one need nuclear deterrence for in today’s world - to ward off the US, China or Israel perhaps? Isn’t Dr Borg aware of the Europe-wide trend to phase out nuclear power generation? Dr Borg has either lost track or is in need of some serious updating or simply is looking for a dead horse to flog.
It might be useful if he does what he is very good in doing that is, not saying anything at all, which is what he does best whenever the media ask him a question about Kordin hunger strikes, corrupt judges, sex-starved Police Commissioners and illegal immigrants.
Why does the Curia never get it right? Yet again, it is launching a tirade against priests who take a public political stand, because, it says, this goes against its directives.
Does it go against the gospel? Jesus never said priests shouldn’t side with a party or with political candidates, but then again, he never said they shouldn’t marry either.
It is also remarkable how selective the bishops are to speak about problems within the church – as if Fr Colin Apap is the greatest malaise right now. Worse than paedophile priests, it seems, judging by their immediate reaction to the news of his involvement, in contrast with their defensive attitude as regards child abuse by priests.
The question we ask the Archbishop is: Is he uncomfortable with Fr Colin Apap (and with all the other priests who in the past declared their political viewpoint) just because he made his views public? What about Fr Peter Serracino Inglott’s political manifestos for the PN? And his participation at the Convention on the Future of Europe? Manifestos can be written privately, away from public eye, but surely the Curia is not suggesting that matters relating to conscience are only relevant when they are out in the open?
|
