Bondì lands himself in trouble after kissing the crucifix in court

@ħsieb ħieles Thanks for the translation (and to the Editor for adding it to the story). Now, it makes sense, or should I say, I can get a laugh out of it.   Geez, referring to someone as a "stubborn Nationalist" is libelous? They're kiddin', no?   C'mon ... is there any politically oriented Maltese who is not a stubborn this or stubborn that?   What happened to the technique of a few seconds' delay, in order to be able to edit out objectionable material?   In regard to the oath, it won't surprise me if the Magistrate finds Mr. Bondi in contempt of Court.

Does anybody still believes, in this time and age, that swearing on the crucifix or the catholic bible, immaterial whether one is a believer or not, really and truly ensures that nothing but the truth is declared in court? This is a useless tradition and is by no means an assurance of honestly and truthfulness. If justice depends on this act, than that explains why more and more people are doubting the sentences being pronounced by the law courts.

This morning I heard Mr. Pierre Portelli interviewing Mr. Bondi on PBS breakfast programme. The remarks passed by Mr. Pierre Portelli shows how biased he is and the BA should take note of his remarks. He started by asking Mr. Bondi for his views on what happened in court the day before, but he continued that everyone knows that Dr. Toni Abela is the deputy leader of the LP and therefore he was expected to act like that because of his connection with the LP. If we base same reasoning for Mr. Pierre Portelli himself, therefore everybody knows of his connections with the PN and therefore he should not feature in the current affairs programme on PBS, as he is a totally biased guy who is not able to keep his opinion for himself when acting as a presenter in a PBS programme, which is paid from the taxes of all us irrespective whether we are labourites or nationalists.

@Antoine Vella. Your comments are baseless. The issue raised by Dr. Toni Abela is legal issue of principle. Do you pretend that Mr.Bondi is above the law? What has the progressive factors of the LP have to do with this legal case?

During the divorce campaign the PL went to great lengths to persuade us that it is a 'progressive" party. . Now, the PL Deputy Leader himself is dismantling that carefully constructed facade of progressiveness. . In other words he is showing us what the PL truly is.

JMB I take it you are an atheist or do not belong to the Catholic church. What you said makes alot of sense but it goes against the teaching of the church and is relativistic. Not thatI give a rat's ass; in fact I agree with you but what Tony Abela did was exploit our medeival culture.. Anyway I do not believe that Lou Bondi has the brains to be an atheist

Definition 1: Atheism is the believe that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically re-arranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. ---- Definition 2: The believe in something called nothing ----- Yep, I'm an atheist too..makes perfect sense to me :)

What a waste of time for our courts. As far as I know there is no law which says a non-believer cannot take an oath and as far as I know an affirmation is an option NOT a must for non-believers, Raising this issue is simply mixing secular and religious issues for some agenda going beyond the case in dispute. Perjury if it occurs has nothing to do with believing or kissing the cross but it arises from not speaking the truth in court ,a civic obligation which if transgressed results in a serious criminal offence. I would be interested to know how Lou Bondi and Toni Abela would define an atheist. Stating that you are often means not having religious faith in the unknown for I am sure that the overwhelming majority do not dismiss the possibility that there might be some sort of superior being or order of nature still to be understood. If in an impish way the lawyer was using the situation to raise the well trodden issue of a how an oath taken in its literal sense of resorting to God is a religious act of interference with the secular or perhaps used it in order to put the other party in the light of a hypocrite. I am afraid an inappropriate situation was chosen and I would have expected the magistrate to dismiss it out of hand.. Most of us look at the oath as simply a symbolic tradition and we just take it as part of the process of not stalling the flow of proceedings. For most of us a pang of conscience or perjury does not result from offending God in not telling the truth but rather in not being honest to ourselves.

@ consequences |n atheists are people who have freed themselves from the shackles of superstition and accepted reality as it is.

Atheist and a Nationalist (Knisja u Patrija) and a liberal and a progessive (in the conservative) Nationalist Party! It seems as if Bondi has remained insular likes the majority of the other immigrants,although he lived and studied in Canada! I guess I cannot say 'only in Malta'; but: 'only in Gozo'!

Thank God I'm an atheist too.

The first time I set foot in a court house, when I was called to the witness stand I was flustered and had a bit of butterflies and I went along with the whole "swear on the bible" ritual. The second time round, being more prepared, I told the magistrate that I'm not religious, and without batting an eyelid he just told me to make a solemn declaration instead. No problem. . BY LAW, in ANY situation in Malta where a person is requested to take an oath, that person has the right to make a solemn declaration instead, and leave out "so help me God" or any religious symbolism whatsoever. This applies whether you're on the witness stand or being sworn in as President. . See item 631. (1) of the criminal code (on witnesses), item 111 of the code of organization and civil procedure as well as ch.245, the Affirmations Act (although IANAL) . Having said that, I don't think that, legally speaking, Lou Bondi's use of the crucifix in any way affects the validity of his statements. The law says that he has the RIGHT to swear on something else or make a solemn declaration, not that he is OBLIGED to.

Skont id-dizzjunarju ta' Aquilina, koċċut hija pig-headed, unreasonably obstinate u stubborn

Someone please translate "koccut" for the benefit of those us who left Malta's shores almost 60 years ago Weird language, that Maltese, eh! Or maybe, it's my atheism.

My previous comment was aimed at 'consequnces', of course.

Glad I am an atheist. And I print my real name, unlike some cowards.

@consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology At least 23 of them were a Nobel prize winner. This is only a small lsit. Some atheists actually believe quite the opposit, that religions are a sad excuse for stealing people's lives and resources.

Atheists are all a sad excuse.