Some people in life just can’t seem to put a foot right.
Look at Joseph Muscat, for instance. (I mean the Labour leader, not the guy from Mosta who writes millions of letters to the papers each week.) It seems that no matter what he does, he always ends up pissing someone off. And OK: plenty of these pissed-off pundits are perennially predictable in their periodic (and predominantly puerile) propaganda pot-shots. (What d’you mean, alliteration? I don’t even know what the word means...)
But this week marked a whole new dimension in the rapidly spreading cult of “Josephobia”. I mean, he even managed to piss off Ranier Fsadni – that mildest of mannered and supposedly moderate social anthropologist – by suggesting that the divorce issue should be put to a free vote.
Yes, hugely annoying, I have to admit. Personally, I think Muscat should have simply driven all his arch-conservative and anti-divorce backbenchers to a clearing somewhere in the middle of the Cambodian jungle, and had them all shot. (Ever wondered why I never entered politics? Well, now you know.)
But no matter: what I find truly fascinating about this latest twist is not so much the hows and the whys of Joseph’s own way of doing politics – but rather the enormity of the dilemma he is very clearly posing for those among the Nationalist ensemble who happen to have liberal leanings.
Think about it for a moment. Never mind that under two generations of staunchly conservative PN leaders, the word ‘divorce’ was practically anathema to a Party which fancied itself as the Vatican’s militant political wing. No: it’s Joseph Muscat who now gets all the flak; and not so much for being in favour of divorce – that’s “fashionable” among Nationalists these days – but rather, for not forcing his own views down all his party’s throat... like the PN no doubt would, if the shoe were on the other foot.
That’s right, folks. For today’s crop of Nationalist intellectuals, it’s not enough to be actively and vociferously in favour of divorce legislation being introduced to Malta... you also have to make the issue a sine qua non for your entire party. Just as the PN was until yesterday “more Catholic than the Pope”, it is now trying to project itself as “more liberal than Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero”. Whatever next?
In a sense, there is a certain poetic justice in the unfolding scenario. It seems the same Nationalist Party which for two decades dismissed “liberalism” as a product of human depravity – a sort of political aberration, akin to Joseph Ratzinger’s views of homosexuality, or Tonio Borg’s opinion of female reproductive rights – is only now waking up to the fact that, Gosh! Some of its own supporters are actually liberals.
What a fascinating scenario. And how utterly hilarious! I mean... what on earth is a genuine, conservative, traditionalist Christian Democrat like Dr Adrian Vassallo (Whoops! Sorry, wrong party...) to do under those circumstances?
Well, there are a number of available options. One of them is to follow The Smiths’ advice and... well... Panic. (That’s what associations like the Gift of Life Foundation did this week – more of these later).
Alternatively, you could put on a brave face and just admit it: the PN is no place for liberals; it never has been, and never will be, so saith Eddie Fenech Adami, Amen.
But this is unlikely to win you kudos among your disenchanted liberal supporters, and let’s not forget: there are still elections to win every five or so years. So you might want to try and keep them guessing, at least for as long as it takes to win their vote.
This is the John Dalli approach, and it works like this. Waffle something suitably meaningless, such as: “The time has come to kick-start a national debate on divorce”... naturally, omitting to mention that this debate was actually kick-started over a decade ago. Then simply forget you ever said anything, sit back, and permit the preposterous platoon of predominantly puerile propaganda pundits to proselytise for you... by proxy.
(Strange as it may sound, this tactic actually goes down very well with a certain section of the Nationalist electorate: the one which still clings to the belief that the PN will one day refashion itself after their own image and likeness... instead of the other way around, which is how things invariably work out in the end.)
Alternatively, there is always a final trump card you can play: Out-liberal the liberals. That’s right, folks. Do the quintessentially PN thing, and instead of turning your big guns on people like Joseph Muscat because they’re too liberal for your liking... you blast them to smithereens for NOT BEING LIBERAL ENOUGH.
Yes, indeed. And they call me a cynic...

Gift of Lies

On the subject of Joseph and his amazing technicolour liberal tendencies, this week we witnessed a truly remarkable vicissitude in our long and painstaking evolution from the early Middle Ages.
The Gift of Life Foundation – conscious of the above transition, and no doubt taking their cue from the Bishops’ “And We Will Strike Down The Liberals With Great Vengeance” sermon on 8 September – decided it was high time to take the old Foetus Frenzy proposal out of the freezer, and force it down our collective throats... again.
So on Thursday, the foetus fan-club had an appointment with Young Mr Muscat in person – who, age-wise at least, is the closest thing to an embryo available among Maltese political leaders these days.
I won’t bore you with the full text of GoL’s subsequent press statement, but here are a couple of brief snippets: “We are pleased that Dr Muscat has again reiterated that the party is firmly against abortion... Dr Muscat said that he agreed that the unborn child does indeed have the right to life. Gift of Life has agreed to meet Dr Muscat again in the near future allowing him and the MLP time to reflect on this proposal...” Blah, blah, blah.
In other words, Muscat actually gave this proposal the time of day. And there, I thought, went all his newfound liberal tendencies in one fell swoop.
Now imagine my surprise, when, some five minutes later, I received a copy of the Malta Labour Party’s own press release about the same meeting.
Again I won’t quote the whole thing, but here are the excerpts which immediately leapt to the eye: “On his part, while reiterating his position against abortion, (Muscat) said that he personally had reservations about the amendment. Dr Muscat quoted arguments put forward by persons such as Prof. Peter Serracino Inglott and Prof. Kenneth Wain on the subject of democracy, adding that he identified with their concerns.”
Well, well, well. Such, then, were the “interesting views” that were exchanged between the MLP and Gift of Life: Muscat said he disagreed with their proposal (OK, OK, he “had reservations” about it... then quoted two well-known intellectuals who have opposed the amendment in public), and for their part, GoL omitted entirely to even mention this rather important fact.
I don’t know about you, but in my book that counts as an attempt to distort the true nature of the discussion. In other words, a downright lie.
Why would GoL do that, I wonder? Could it be for the same reason that they have consistently labelled all their critics – myself included – as “hysterical pro-abortionists”, despite the fact that none of us is actually campaigning for abortion in the first place? Could it be that there is more, much more, to this proposal than actually meets the eye?
I don’t know, but one thing is clear. Gift of Life has been less than totally honest about its Constitutional amendment proposal, and certainly about its meeting with Muscat this week. I think we are owed an explanation.