A 'lie' may take care of the present, but it has no future

I just wonder what it takes to uncover the hypocrisy and the double standards in those who call themselves men.

This week, the testimony of a medical specialist made the news. His name is Dr Anthony Samuel.

Now, if he were citizen Joe, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been taken to the cleaners and made to answer for his actions.

If he were a political person leaning towards Labour, he would have been taken out and shot: the same way the Nationalists were treated before 1987.

The situation is that bad.

The Medical Council should take a closer look at this case, and take action.  In another country he would be struck off the register.

More importantly, the whole episode involving Sandro Chetcuti and Vince Farrugia should be revisited.

Chetcuti has been described by the spin machine oiled by Castille as some blood-hound who wanted to murder Farrugia. 

The truth is that the newspapers and the media - or at least, one grouping - were very interested in standing up for Vince Farrugia and cutting Chetcuti to bits. The story as it unfolds, with all the SMSes being revealed after Farrugia's sim card revelations in court, is turning out to be a farce; but nonetheless the GRTU chief still gets all the support from the gang of three headed by Philip Fenech, Paul Abela and Mario Debono and the usual bilious press.

The way the press and the bile bloggers treated this case merits more than simple attention. It calls for a closer look at the way people are judged before they even start to face proceedings in the court itself.

There is no comparison but it is clear that this is a repeat of the Meinrad Calleja case.

Something which many people do not remember, or at least conveniently forget, is how the journalists played to the tune of those who had every interest to demolish the version of those people who did not believe that it was not Zeppi l-Hafi who had been at Mdina that night.

The same posse of journalists who acted then, continue to play this game today. The demonisation of Sandro Chetcuti was not difficult at all; it was masterminded by those who played on the fact the man was a 'devil', a ruthless developer, a money-monger who by the way drove a Ferrari.

That description was enough to suggest that such a person should locked up anyway. 

The same treatment was reserved for Vince Farrugia before, when he was on the other side of the border; but since his migration to the PN and his decision to stand as a PN candidate, Farrugia has become part of the clan.

No longer derided by the bile queen: on the contrary, embraced and turned into a modern day hero. Forgotten are the days when he brought down the 1996 government and elected Alfred Sant.

Back to Dr Samuel.

What is not easy is getting caught when you lie or being economical with the truth. But when you are caught then I am afraid you are caught.

Chetcuti's defence has exhibited five SMS messages between 15 March and 23 March between members of the Farrugia family. One of them, from Farrugia's daughter Marie-Claire (who had had a relationship with Samuel) to her father Vince Farrugia, read: "Hi Pa, I've just asked Anthony Samuel consultant radiologist to do special scan on ribs. Do not worry there is no difference in treatment, but it helps court case." The defence also said it has evidence that when the bone scan was taken on Vince Farrugia on 26 March 2010, Farrugia had actually been at the Golden Sands resort in Ghajn Tuffieha.  In a previous sitting Dr Mario Scerri had challenged the conclusions of Dr Samuel's report and insisted that Vince

Farrugia's ribs were not fractured. Backed up by a three-phase scan, Dr Scerri explained that the scan showed a remodelled bone due to a previous injury but there were no fractures.

Now, this very week we also witnessed another episode involving a specialist who is being accused of involuntary homicide. The story was momentarily uploaded on our site and that of the Times, but later we discovered that there was a court order not to report the name or the case. I was even faced with the argument: well, he has saved many lives, even if this is a mistake why should he made to suffer?

Really, I cannot understand.

Is the law equal to everyone?

Imagine you, a reader, happened to kill someone by mistake.  For example, someone reckless suddenly runs out on the street and you run him over. Should you be allowed to walk out of the courts just like that? And would the courts order that your name be withheld from the press?

This same week, I talked to a person who is a member on the MEPA board and I questioned the decision to vote yes for Heavy Fuel Oil for the delimara power station extension.

The MEPA board member was quite defensive but then the argumentation was even more distressing. He said that without them (the MEPA board) approving HFO, we would have increased electricity tariffs.

Apart from the fact that what he was saying was completely untrue, I asked him since when did MEPA start worrying about the tariffs? Was this not a question for the Malta Resources Authority?

I thought MEPA had very strict criteria to follow and could not start making decisions on political criteria. And to end the brief conversation, I said that next time MEPA come to decide on an illegal building they should consider how much money the developer is going to lose, or whether the person who inhabits the house has another house to move into.

Waving the Labour flag

And then the energy question takes me to Michael Briguglio, the man who has made it very clear that I will definitely not be voting for the party I co-founded in 1989.

Unlike Briguglio I did not wave a Labour party flag in 1996, when Labour won the election after Vince Farrugia waged war over the introduction of VAT.

Indeed in 1996 after the Greens' bad showing I was closing down the Alternattiva newspaper and the radio station and trying to keep a party alive after most of the prominent members simply disappeared.

But of late, Mr Briguglio has been given unusual media prominence for his opposition to a proposal for a new power station plant.

Obviously Briguglio thinks that he is being placed at the top of the news on Net, and of course the PN's bi-weekly propaganda show on TVM, because of his intelligent commentaries. 

Little does he realize that sooner rather than later he will disappear from the news and return to being a fax machine party operator spewing press releases about any subject which happens to tickle his fancy.

But more importantly he does not realize that the issue of a new power station, or rather the opposition to the new power station, is all about vested interests.

Yes, interests: business interests and more importantly money.

They can be listed as follows:

(1) Retaining the status quo, and that is, all the suppliers and representatives involved in the present power station.

(2) Demolishing any client who could possibly be linked to John Dalli.

(3) Ensuring that nothing changes in the network of 'hbieb tal-hbieb'.

Briguglio is of course partly right when he talks of energy policies which are not green.  What he does not realize is that the onslaught against Sargas is all about trying to f*** up a business proposal and keeping the big boys happy.
And anyone who happens to raise a finger to cry wolf is immediately accused of being a mercenary or in cahoots with evil.

In one respect, the PM's targeting of Sargas and suggested link to John Dalli has put everyone else on the defensive, especially the Labour party who are petrified at being linked with Gonzi's pet hate - Dalli, or even more so, to Sargas.

But whether Briguglio likes it or not, on a micro-level the Sargas proposal would have solved three local major problems.

Firstly it would have reduced local carbon emissions. It would have turned Enemalta into a solvent company, and more importantly it would have reduced electricity tariffs.

Whether it would have been by half or by a fraction, the result would have been beneficial to our wellbeing. In the quest to hit out at Sargas, Briguglio has obviously made it abundantly clear that he does not like Labour. I am quite sure that the feeling is mutual.

All those who have ganged up together to demolish a proposal were obviously not there

That I can understand: I too do not have a love affair for Labour.  But more often than not my criticism of this government is confused with love for Labour. But unlike Briguglio I never endorsed Labour, and never jumped onto carcades screaming hysterically that Labour had won the election in 1996.