The hidden hand behind the messenger

In November 2010, the backbencher and divorce campaigner Jeffrey Pullicino complained to the Prime Minister about a letter published in The Times by a certain Joseph Bonett.

That complaint led the prime minister to write a letter in the newspaper standing up for Pullicino.

It was yet a unique attempt by the prime minister to placate a backbencher.

In his letter to The Times, the PM wrote:

In favour of a mature debate: "Reference is made to the letter Upholder of Values or Downright Bigots? (November 6). While reiterating my personal views against divorce, I would like to point out my disagreement with certain sentiments expressed in the letter, in particular the phrase '... taken the law into his hands with fatal consequences...'. These do not represent the values I stand for and seek to promote. Whatever the circumstances, I will never endorse an approach where "the end justifies the means", even when the end is a noble cause.

"I condemn all hatred expressed in all circumstances and reiterate my appeal to all concerned to keep political language within the bounds of what should be acceptable in a mature demo­cratic society."

The editor then went on to make a statement: "The Times disassociates itself from the comments in the letter mentioned by the Prime Minister. It also apologises for any inconvenience caused."

Never before have I seen a letter by Gonzi on any subject.

Like so many politicians, Gonzi is not one who writes articles or letters. I am sure you would all agree that since his election as leader and prime minister, he has faced several serious episodes which required clarification and volumes of words. Needless to say, he has decided to do nothing, and say nothing.

Now, over and over again, most especially when I did still speak to Edgar Galea Curmi, I always held the PM and Cachia Caruana responsible for the comments about private citizens published by the 'queen of bile'.

And I have always argued that the reason that he has not chosen to point out the bile blogger by name is simply because she is protected and is an asset for Castille.

You may recall that the Cardinal (Richard Cachia Caruana) has taken me to court for defamation. The Cardinal has argued that my argument that he is behind many of the bile blogger's commentaries is false.

Well, there are several who concur with my point of view, and I will strive to point this out in court.

The latest character who thinks so is Franco Debono, who has gone as far as to call her 'Mrs Cachia Caruana'. 

Debono - like other Nationalists, such as Mugliett, Pullicino Orlando, Musumeci and Dalli - have all had a taste of the poisoned pen of the woman who has nothing better to do than print abuse.

The problem with the bile blogger is not her point of view. She has every right to be a government ass-licker. That is her prerogative and if she enjoys being part of that tribe, then so be it.

But her choice of victims is why her journalism can be dubbed 'terrorism'.

If I choose to criticise Richard Cachia Caruana, I do so for what he stands for and says. I may not be nice in the way I do it.

But - and a very big BUT - I do not put others into the picture. I do not drag his mother and father, brothers or sisters, friends and partners into the fray. 

The bile blogger does this with the tenacity of a fixated and cruel psycho.

And what's more, she is supported by the fact that her platoon of sycophants just love to see the bile trickle out of her pen.

Anyone who has remotely criticised either Gonzi or Cachia Caruana have been taken to bits.

Their personal lives dismantled, and adjectives and lies added on to the mudslinging train of hate and vitriol.

And this has specifically included those who are not Labourites.

The funny thing is that one would have expected the liberal pen pusher to look the other way but instead, she revels in writing about sex and more sex, and failed relationships. 

I am sure Joe Cassar - a psychiatrist - could draw a useful profile about her.

The victims have included Nationalist MPs and PN dissidents. 

Not to mention those in the press who dare question Gonzi's or RCC's wisdom.

When RCC was going through his own personal ordeal, anyone who dared question the veracity of the court statements was bandied around and decimated.

The link was all too clear to see.

She has destroyed those who have stood in her way and yet no one has had the gall to dissociate themselves from her.

They are too scared and too petrified that she will become nastier, and more of a bitch.

Joseph Muscat's decision to pinpoint her by name is probably meant to make her nastier. The nastier she gets, the better for him, the worse for Gonzi.

Of all the saints and virginal characters, you would have expected someone like Joe (Peppi) Azzopardi to take a stand and say something... to at least point out that her behaviour is unacceptable.

But then again, they make no distinction between the public person and the private person.

In my days, when we argued together in the small office at Alternattiva, Joe was standing up to be counted. 

U iva, we all get older and rounder, but one would have imagined that some principles do not go away.

Joe had a throbbing heart for anything, from the hostess that was refused a job at Air Malta because she was too obese to the workers at a factory who could only visit the toilet if they were accompanied by a supervisor.

When Lawrence Gonzi and all the rest have been asked to specify whether they are willing to condemn the excesses of this blogger by name, they have opted for being generic. 

They have gone further - they have confused the criticism of a public person and that of a private person.

I am not attempting to suggest that I should be considered to be the most balanced journalist, and soft-gloved at all.

Far from it.

But why must private citizens who have nothing to answer for be dragged into the arena because they happened to know or have been close to one of the bile blogger's targets.

Nobody - not one single person - has attempted to stand up for these poor victims.

They have been terrorised.

In secret, many have told me to hit back on a personal level, to illustrate the hypocrisy of the bile blogger's life and her very imperfect lifestyle. And I can assure you the details about her in my armoury would make for interesting reading.

But I have strived to avoid stooping so low, and to avoid mentioning even by name.

Others have interpreted this as a weakness. The Sunday Times editor Steve Mallia - who last week was summoned to court and appeared in a chocolate beige suit that reminded me of John Cleese in Fawlty Towers - had this to say about me in an editorial.

"When there was a negative comment about the managing editor on our website, he called a senior person within our organisation to request its removal. Meanwhile, he scaled down his criticism of a well-known woman blogger because she proved to be better at his game than he is."

Little did Mr Mallia know that senior person was Mario de Marco, who experienced in previous years attacks from the bile blogger on his late father. 

Because, as we all know, Guido de Marco did not see eye-to-eye with Richard Cachia Caruana. And the bile blogger chose - as Mario de Marco knows - to reveal untruths or rumours about Prof. de Marco's life.

But Mario - who does not have his father's stature - is a far weaker person. He betrayed a private conversation we had about how another of the bile bloggers' sychophants - Andrew Borg Cardona - repeated one of her desultory comments about my late wife on The Times.

De Marco shared my opinion at the time but it seems Steve Mallia did not agree.

Mallia probably agreed that a comment about my late wife's cadaver was perfectly normal and within limits, otherwise he would not have passed such a silly comment in his editorial.

But in the end, Mario has become a pragmatist and has gone so far as appointing the bile bloggers' sister on St James' Cavalier.

Coincidence, I would think.

Yeah right!

His father, I am sure would be pleased.

But if one needed proof that the bile blogger is protected by the powers that be, one need only see the support she receives from those who support her financially. I mean in her publications and in The Independent, owned by the same group of individuals who are very good at washing their hands when the time comes.

The same companies owned by the same individuals that have always believed in her and kept her alive. One may continue to believe that after such terrorism, life will treat you in a fair way.

It will not.

People have short memories, but people who are hurt and wounded, never forget.

They will never forget what she has said. They will never forgive her for her attacks and now with the very fact that she has become an official 'political' problem she will never be forgotten.

She will, of course, argue that I am promulgating some vendetta against her. Not at all, I am simply reminding her that what goes around comes around, and that what goes up, must come down. That nothing is forever and that she, like me, are creatures of this world, with an expiry date.

Gonzi will not condemn the person who he believes is one of his gladiators. A person who willfully beheads and tarnishes anyone who happens to query the very authority of the prime minister.

Debono may not be the right man for the moment. He may have the wrong motives for his actions, but in truth he has managed to uncover the blinkers that permeate the true game in Malta.

The queen of bile argues that there is nothing as bad as Labour.

She probably does not realise how many people could not give a hoot what Labour stands for, or what their proposals say. 

It is not Labour that they are worried about. They are concerned that people like her and her band of well-wishers should not be salivating and regurgitating for another five years.

And the bad news is that most of these aren't Labourites but Nationalists who are sick and tired of her bigotry and the protection afforded to her by her masters.