Up to Friday, I thought that Gonzi was doing a better job on the hustings than Sant. But, since reading his comments about the goings-on at the university so called debate, on Monday, it is now Gonzi who is shooting himself in the foot.
It was not just the Labour Party and its Media that criticised the proceedings at the debate, which left people confused on whether it was a debate or a mass meeting.
Are we now to understand that under a new PN administration things will get worse for those in the English Language papers who criticise the PN, even when it means it may lose an election?
I thought that kind of thing was precisely what some people are using as scaring tactics of what would happen to Labour policy and behaviour critics, under a new Labour administration.
“With us, whichever way we behave, or else”.
I was one of the people who criticised the questionable activities at the university on Monday and I do not belong to the Labour camp.
Alfred Sant and Jason Micallef have not been given any accolades in my columns, although, I do give the leader of the Opposition credit for challenging corruption and nepotism.
I criticise bad behaviour and governance without exception and if the PN finds that hard to stomach, tough. Labelling me as a Labour pundit is as absurd as it is dishonest.
What I cannot stomach is the barrage of bullying that is going on in influential quarters.
Shut up, unless you have only good things to say about the PN. This is the message we are getting. It is he who makes the most noise and writes the most verbiage that matters, is another message that is reaching me loud and clear.
Those of us who objectively point out where the PN government went wrong are constantly undermined. Take Martin Scicluna: because he ‘dared’ to respond to Minister Pullicino on Mepa, at this crucial time, he is, like me now, labelled another Labour pundit.
According to some in the PN, all those of us who are telling Gonzi “you are rather late acting on Mepa reform” have become honorary Labourites hoping for a handout if Labour wins the election.
If Labour does win and fails to reform Mepa and address other conflicts of interest, corruption and nepotism, it will get exactly the same criticism.
I of course will then again be labelled as a PN pundit. Don’t forget that when refusing to play the Labour media game on Super 1, when I did not trash Gonzi’s budget, only a few months back, I was described as “mera ta Gonzi”.
That really made me smile, although I do give Gonzi credit for things he did well, I am certainly not one of his sycophantic cheerleaders.
In fact, since Friday, when he sent a “strong message of solidarity to ‘all’ (my emphasis) university students, who had been attacked continuously by the Labour Party and its media after taking part in the political debate at the University on Monday,” he has gone down in my estimation.
All the students who took part in the debate that escalated into a mass meeting were not criticised, which is what was implied. It was the ones who turned the debate into a mass meeting who were attacked.
In fact, many of the students present disassociated themselves from the behaviour of the majority of the audience at the university debate, which it transpires was a public meeting after all.
And the continuity on the topic was certainly not one-sided.
In fact, as I commented on Wednesday, a barrage of emotions was unleashed in The Times, on Tuesday, and what was really interesting and telling was that rather than opining on the issues discussed at the debate, all the comments, including the ones defending the hissers and booers, revolved around whether the students behaved badly or not and in personal attacks from one blogger to another.
My criticism of what went on was that a university debate is expected to demonstrate a bit more brain power, argumentative capabilities and sophistication and less of the ‘massa’ mentality.
Also interesting, a little later, were the comments from one of the university ‘debate’ organisers, whose contribution was more than a little confused.
This is what he had to say: “Although not typical of a debate format, what we had was a political debate with a very strong and active audience more typical of a mass meeting… The Nationalist stronghold was evident instantly… the crowd was severely one sided (something beyond anyone’s control), the actual debate was fair and balanced.”
Make your own judgement on that one. But let me get back to what else Gonzi had to say about the matter:
“…It can’t be that we call whoever does not agree with us ‘marmalja’ and ‘hamalli’. These are things of the past”.
Indeed. Yet, the past is precisely one of the weapons being used by PN activists and others and it is now publicly condoning bullying, even if no physical violence is involved.
As a serious politician, Gonzi should also realise that if calling people, who don’t agree with one, hamalli is a thing of the past, so should hissing and booing at the people you do not agree with.
“The way students booed Alfred Sant was so embarrassing that I recalled the state of democracy in the 1980s”, said one blogger.
As for calling people hamalli and marmalja, what goes around, comes around. The shoe is on the other foot right now and those who normally are so quick at snobbish name-calling are getting a taste of their own medicine.
It is precisely the kind of arrogance demonstrated at the university on Monday that people are fed up with and Gonzi made a grave mistake giving it his strong approval.

pamelapacehansen@gmail.com