The liberty to silence and shoot all liberals

Some are born with a silver spoon. Some are born under a lucky star. Some are born beautiful with charisma oozing out of their pores. I was born a liberal bore. Anything which goes against liberty within the confines of societal rules was, and remains, anathema to me. That has been my boring mantra throughout my life. I hope to stick to it till I am returned to the ground, lifeless.

The battle raging in Malta’s Opposition party—or is it a coalition? —is to me sad news.

Sad for a variety of reasons but mainly because the leader of the other side—the Labour Party or movement—is gathering more honour and plaudits when he should have been driven out or at least had his self-sated grin struck off. Because, whatever his credentials in civic society, our dear Joseph Muscat remains the prime minister most embroiled in, or connected to, corruption and shady ministers.

No amount of pandering to minorities will erase the stigma of condoning corruption in the highest echelons of government. That Joseph Muscat is Super-Teflon Man is no coincidence. He and his close advisers know how to use all the cards in his pack grandly. His rivals, on the other hand, are close to useless.

I was under the impression that the amendment to the Marriage Act which allows all couples of opposing or same sex to actually get married was already in place. All that this new law has done, besides ruffle a few silly feathers, is change the semantics of the law to be more inclusive. Marriage or civil union? What’s in a name say I. So why has the Tonio Fenech brigade reacted so vociferously?

Only God knows. Or, rather, even He who surveys it all up there with His son and the Holy Spirit must be in a real heavenly tizzle.

Tonio Fenech claims that other MPs in the PN fold, besides Edwin Vassallo, are against the Marriage Act, but have voted in favour because they were obliged to, and that a free vote should have been granted.

If Edwin Vassallo and the rest of the motley conservatives were against same sex-marriage why didn’t they pronounce themselves earlier? And why is Claudio Grech now demanding that MPs should not be tied to what their party pledged in its electoral manifesto?

Let’s take a wonderfully deep breath and try to understand this insightful thinking.

If an electoral manifesto is not a tie then why issue it? If it is just a piece of paper to be discarded and used as a bin-liner why waste time on it? I know few voters read it from cover to cover, but I was convinced that prospective MPs not only read it but believed in it wholeheartedly.

Take a scenario—ok now this will come as pure science fiction a few weeks after the PN debacle at the polls—where the PN won the 2017 election by a whisker and now have a wafer-thin majority of 1 seat.

First thing Simon Busuttil proposes is an Act to include same-sex marriage. And Edwin Vassallo rears his head, claims his values are paramount and votes against. Claudio Grech in the Chamber announces that he doesn’t care what the PN pledged at the polls.

Busuttil in this silly scenario feels sillier by the minute.

Back to reality: as I said, I believe that liberty is paramount in anything. But if that liberty means dismantling anything whenever anyone feels like then that liberty is itself a cage of idiocy.