Ġentili

Hemm min tinnutah għax storbjuż, jew għax kapaċi jsostni argument bil-qawwa u ma jħalli lil ħadd jgħaddiha lixxa jekk ikun żbalja. Hemm min tibqa’ tiftakru għax kelma l-istonku tiegħu ma jesagħhiex u li jidhirlu li għandu jgħid ilissnu dejjem, ikunu x’ikunu l-konsegwenzi.

Seħibna K. kien bil-maqlub ta’ dan kollu: kwiet, imma mhux ġwejjed, meqjus fi kliemu, jisma’ lil kulħadd u jixtarr dak li jkun intqal. Ma kienx jitkellem wisq, imma meta kien jiftaħ ħalqu, kulħadd kien jisma’ b’attenzjoni għax konna nafu li minn fommu kliem bis-sens biss joħroġ – u dejjem bil-ġentilezza. Fi kważi kwart ta’ seklu li kont ili nafu, tul il-mijiet ta’ laqgħat li attenda qatt, lanqas darba, ma niftakar li smajtu jgħolli leħnu. Anke meta ma konniex naqblu fuq kemm ilu wieqaf mill-alkoħol u l-argument bilkemm ma kienx jisħon - għax hu kien konvint li waqaf 20  sena ilu, u jien kont ngħidlu 18 - kien jirrita ruħu, imma ġentili kien u ġentili baqa’ anke f’dawk il-mumenti...

Tfaċċa l-ewwel darba fil-gruppi tagħna xi 25 sena ilu. Kien irrealizza waħdu li kellu problema serja tax-xorb, minħabba l-ammonti li kien jixrob, għax ma setax ma jixrobx u għax il-kontroll, anke fuq l-ammont li kien iniżżel kien ilu li ntilef. Tal-familja qatt ma gergrulu – wieħed mill-ftit ħafna - għax qatt ma dejjaqhom. Kwiet u ġentili meta ma jixrobx u, ħaġa tassew tal-għaġeb, kwiet u ġentili anke meta l-alkoħol jieħdu. Imma sens kellu, iktar minn biżżejjed, u fittex l-għajnuna. Kien jiġi l-gruppi u jitkellem fuq ħajtu fix-xorb b’onestà kbira, imma wara disa’ xhur għeb. Kont ċempiltlu u qalli li reġa’ beda jixrob u kien qiegħed isibha bi tqila biex ikompli jiġi. Dak iż-żmien ma rnexxilix nikkonvinċih jiġi lura.

Ma kinitx ħafifa għalih; l-alkoħoliżmu kien f’demmu, u minħabba x-xogħol tiegħu kien imdawwar bix-xorb tista’ tgħid kuljum. Imma reġa’ waqaf u rġajna rajnieh fil-grupp. Wara erba’ xhur reġa’ sparixxa – naturalment għax kien irkada.

Fl-aħħar kien ix-xorb stess li waqqfu, biex ngħid hekk.  Minħabba l-alkoħol, tant ħżienet il-kundizzjoni fiżika tiegħu li kellu jiddaħħal l-isptar. Tatu taqliba kbira bl-alluċinazzjonijiet b’kollox (delirium tremens) u matul il-lejl kellhom jorbtuh mas-sodda. Meta ġie f’tiegħu il-messaġġ tat-tobba kien aħrax, jaqta’ u bla kantunieri: “Jeħtieġ li tieqaf mix-xorb u mis-sigaretti...minnufih. Għal kollox. Ma tmiss xejn iktar kemm iddum ħaj’’.

Meta mar lura d-dar, ħabat se jaqta’ qalbu: li jieqaf mix-xorb biss kienet iebsa, imma mis-sigaretti wkoll, fl-istess ħin, dehret impossibbli. Min hu dipendenti bis-serjetà biss jista’ jifhem kemm hija wieqfa l-muntanja li jkollok tixxabbat magħha meta tipprova tieqaf. K. kellu tnejn ma’ xiex jiddendel. Kien inċert, mifxul u mbeżża’. Imbagħad ċempel it-telefon.

Kienet social worker minn sedqa. Kienu rreferewlha l-każ mill-isptar u kkuntattjatu biex jiltaqgħu. Għamlitlu l-qalb u wrietu li għalkemm iebsa, ma kienx impossibbli li jagħmel dak li rrikkmandawlu t-tobba jekk kien lest li jipprova bis-serjetà. Baqgħet tarah regolarment u tatu l-appoġġ kollu meħtieġ. Fuq kollox, ħeġġitu biex jerġa’ jibda jattendi l-gruppi.

Did-darba l-esperjenza kerha li għadda xprunatu biex jieħu l-kura għall-alkoħoliżmu b’serjetá kbira: kien jaf li kien hemm ħajtu fin-nofs. Fil-gruppi minn dejjem kien jagħti kontribut siewi; issa sar aktar ħerqan biex jesprimi ħsibijietu biex juri lill-oħrajn l-importanza li jkun moħħhom hemm u jżommu ‘l bogħod mill-ewwel boqqa alkoħol. Stajt tinduna li, bħal kull min jieħu l-kura u l-gruppi bis-serjetà, bi kliemu kien qed jipprova jsaħħaħ ir-rieda tiegħu stess.

M’hemmx dubju li rnexxielu. Jekk kinux 18-il sena jew 20 mhux importanti wisq. Li jgħodd hu li minn dakinhar li daħal l-isptar sa dak in-nhar li l-Mulej sejjaħlu ma messx qatra alkoħol ma’ ħalqu u, minħabba f’hekk seta’ jaħdem fuqu nnifsu u jirranġa ħajtu, jagħti aktar ħin u attenzjoni lill-familja – u jkun fi stat fejn moħħu jkun ċar il-ġurnata kollha.

Mas-snin tgħallimna li, fil-qasam tad-dipendenza, forsi l-ikbar prova li l-kura u r-riabilitazzjoni qed jagħtu l-frott, hija li dak li jkun ikun kuntent li mhux qed jixrob, u sodisfatt bil-ħajja li qed jgħix. Mhux ħieles mill-problemi – dak qatt ma jista’ jkun – imma moħħu mistrieħ li jinqala’ x’jinqala’ se jkun jista’ jiffaċċjah moħħu frisk u bl-enerġija kollha li għandu. K. kien sodisfatt ħafna bil-ħajja bla xorb; kien jgħidha, jtenniha u jagħmel minn kollox biex iħajjar lil sħabu jilħqu dak l-istat u jissaħħu fih.

Bħal kull min ir-riabilitazzjoni tħalli fuqu effett pożittiv, K. kien grat ħafna għal dak li kiseb bil-waqfien mix-xorb. Lis-social worker li appoġġjatu f’mument kruċjali u għenitu  jaqbad it-triq li wasslitu biex isisb tarf tal-problema tax-xorb baqa’ jsemmiha sal-aħħar gruppi li attenda.

Anke l-marda li ġiet fuqu xi seba’ snin ilu qatt ma wasslitu għad-disprament. Ħolqitlu diffikultajiet kbar f’saħħtu, imma ffaċċja kollox b’kuraġġ u determinazzjoni. Fl-aħħar mill-aħħar ħaditlu ħajtu, imma kien seren għax kien jaf li kulma ma seta’ jagħmel kien għamlu. Il-familja tiegħu appoġġjawh u daru miegħu b’mod eżemplari.

K. kien maħbub u rrispettat ħafna minn sħabu tal-grupp tal-alkoħol. Ma stajtx ma tħobbux. Bil-ġentilezza tiegħu kien jasal biex jikkonvinċi aktar minn dawk mimlijin ħrara li kultant kienu jħallu l-entużjażmu jiġri bihom. Bħal ħafna, dam jikkumbatti sakemm waqaf mix-xorb, imma imbagħad waqaf, baqa’ wieqaf u għex ħajja sħiħa, iddedikata lill-familja, mingħajr qatt ma naqas li jipprova jagħti daqqa t’id lil min kellu l-istess problema.

Dawk li kienu jafuh setgħu jgawduh fl-aqwa tal-ġentilezza tiegħu mingħajr xorb għal żmien twil: 18-il sena sħaħ. Jew forsi 20.

Friends in High Places

(This article was written for publication in a sedqa in-house magazine more than 15 years ago)

Browsing the Net the other day, I stumbled across a curious fact.  Drug addiction, alcoholism and compulsive gambling all have at least one patron saint. In fact, there are at least seven saints who, according to traditional Catholic belief, are considered as special protectors to those afflicted with these conditions.

The patronage of Saints has been a Catholic tradition for many centuries.  Catholics have always believed that praying to Saints facilitated the journey of that supplication heavenwards, and increased the chances of it being granted. They often choose to invoke a Saint who is somehow associated (sometimes tenuously so) with whatever problem they happen to be contending with. The reasoning seems to be that a saint who has actually had personal earthly experience of whatever the individual was praying for is more likely to lend a sympathetic ear, and will therefore relay that particular request to the Lord with greater urgency. Such a saint can be counted upon to follow up the supplication more diligently than just any other saint.

While drug addicts and compulsive gamblers can rely on one particular patron saint each, alcoholics appear to be spoilt for choice. No less than five fully canonised individuals are regarded as special protectors of problem drinkers. However, on closer inspection, a couple would appear to have suspect credentials. St. Urban of Langres, for example, having once taken refuge in a vineyard when trying to elude his persecutors, is actually the patron saint of vintners, and (presumably) by association, of the whole Alcohol Industry.  We should think twice about invoking his aid in matters of alcohol policy. It would not do to take him into our confidence, disclose all our plans and strategies, asking for enlightenment and help...and then finding out he’s a secret sympathiser of the Alcohol Industry - if not its paid agent. 

St. Martin of Tours was the first non-martyr to have achieved official sainthood. He is considered to be the protector of various human activities and afflictions apart from alcoholism and reformed alcoholics. I have not been able to find out how his connection with alcohol came about, but since, like Saint Urban, the protection of vintners and wine-makers is included in his portfolio, we should perhaps seek the assistance of others, whose allegiance to our cause is less ambiguous.

Saint John of God, a remarkable man who actually spent some time in a lunatic asylum, and later devoted his energies to tending the poor and the sick, is also considered to be a special protector of alcoholics. It is not clear why, but it is known that prior to his conversion, he was quite a wild character, and may have actually like to indulge in the fruit of the grape. St. John of God is also the patron of mental illness: perhaps we should consider dedicating our Dual Diagnosis unit, if and when it ever about, to him. Also, when problems arise with the Psychiatric Services St. John could be an important ally. 

The list of protectors includes none other than St. Matthias, the man who replaced Judas Iscariot as an apostle, after the latter’s unfortunate accident with rope and tree. Again, why Saint Matthias who was stoned to death in 80 A.D., should become the protector of incontinent imbibers is not limpidly clear. However, a favourite theme in his preaching was the need for mortifying the body and resisting sensual urges, so perhaps there the connection lies. 

So far, not one of the ones listed so far can be said with certainty to have experienced problem drinking directly. But with Saint Monica, the mother of St. Augustine, the link with alcoholism is as clear as it can possibly get, for she was a reformed alcoholic herself. But, there are other aspects of her life which make her someone we could feel comfortable turning to in times of need. With dogged determination she pursued the task of converting her son for no less than seventeen years, until he achieved insight and changed. This is nothing if not inspirational to those, like us, whose work often involves the same sort of initially fruitless endeavours. 

The protector of compulsive gamblers is St. Bernardino of Siena, a Franciscan friar who went from town to Renaissance town preaching against malicious gossip and discord, often prevailing upon his listeners to forget their disputes and make up with their enemies. One of the evils he often railed against was gambling...which explains the subsequent popular devotion to him as patron of those who had this problem. 

Possibly the best known in the list to twenty-first century Christians is the protector of drug addicts, Saint Maximilian Kolbe. In Auschwitz Concentration Camp, he offered to take the place of a man condemned to die of starvation and managed to survive for 14 days, ministering to his nine other dying companions. The Nazis then finished him off with an injection of phenol - hence the connection with intravenous drug use. 

So, whenever, during our work, we feel in a spot tight enough to warrant celestial intervention, there is enough protection we can call upon. Even in this world of addiction work, where humanist values prevail, and where therapeutic approaches are as secularised as they can possibly be, the patronage of no less than seven saints is a precious resource we would perhaps do well to utilise. 

Of course, the above seven heaven-dwellers are deemed to be the protectors of our clients, rather than of those of us who toil to help them. In other words, there is no canonised lady or gentleman who has been assigned the specific duty of watching over you and me. It is a deficiency which, given the sometimes arduous tasks we have to carry out, should cause some concern. But rather than just worry, dear reader, you should realise that if you generally love God and neighbour, carry out your duties diligently and uncomplainingly, forgive all those who frustrate you, and suffer gladly even those colleagues who inflict upon you articles like this one, you could one day be declared the patron saint of addiction workers.

 

Għaliex Ġunju jiġi qabel Mejju...

Kull min iħobb il-futbol Taljan jaf li, fil-5 ta’ Mejju, inkitbet waħda mill-paġni tal-istorja li ma jintesewx. Il-futbol infittxuh u nsegwuh b’passjoni għal ħafna raġunijiet; waħda minnhom għax għal min hu dilettant sew għandu sett ta’ regoli, anke ta’ mġiba, differenti mill-bqija tal-ħajja. Normalment mhux sewwa li titgħajjar, tifraħ bid-deni tal-għadu (lanqas biss mhu suppost li jkollok għadu) u tibqa’ tfakkru fit-telfiet u l-umiljazzjonijiet waqt li inti togħxa.  Imma fil-futbol, anke għax għandu mit-teatru u t-teatrin, u anke mill-finzjoni tan-narrativa, ix-Schadenfreude (li tħossok sodisfatt bl-umiljazzjoni tar-rival) mhux biss huwa permess, imma talli huwa wieħed mill-aspetti li jiġbdu n-nies lejh u jsaħħaħ is-sens ta’ appartenenza ma’ team partikulari.

Kultant nistaqsi lili nnifsi: x’inhu l-aktar li jagħti pjaċir, il-kisba tar-rebħa jew li tkun taf li l-avversarji storiċi jew reċenti jinsabu imdejqin bil-kbir minħabba r-rebħa tat-tim “tiegħi’’? Il-Juventus rebħu (uffiċjalment) 36 scudetto, imma għaliex infakkru dak li ntrebaħ għoxrin  sena ilu u rari insemmu l-oħrajn? Proprju, naħseb, għax kienet rebħa sensazzjonali għal Juventus – imma aktar għax kien mument ta’ dwejjaq kbar, indannazzjoni, għal ‘’dawk’’. Ix-xbiha ta’ dakinhar li baqgħet stampata fil-memorja ta’ ħafna Juventini, mhix iċ-ċelebrazzjonijiet tar-rebħa mhux mistennija, imma ta’ Ronaldo jnewwaħ...

Imma diġa bdejt nintilef għax suppost qed nikteb fuq il-fatt li l-jum memorabbli tal-5 ta’ Mejju 2002 mhuwiex uniku fl-istorja tat-trijonfi Juventini. Kien hemm scudetto ieħor – minn dawk li niftakar jien - li ntrebaħ prorpju fl-aħħar partita meta t-tim kien punt taħt l-avversarji, li rnexxielhom jitilfu ma’ tim dgħajjef. U anke dik id-darba, l-avversarji miġruħa u umiljati inzertaw ‘’dawk’’.

Kont bdejt nżomm mal-Juventus ta’ ħames snin. Kollu t-tort ta’ ċertu Stephen, Alla jaħfirlu. Kien joqgħod fit-triq tagħna u kien xi tliet snin, erbgħa ikbar minni. Dak iż-żmien, il-futbol kien jinltagħab fit-toroq, għalkemm kull nofs siegħa jew tliet kwarti l-logħba kienet titwaqqaf biex tgħaddi xi karozza. Lili ma kinux iħalluni nilgħab magħhom għax kont żgħir wisq u kont inħares lejhom mill-għatba tal-bieb, imxennaq u noħlom li nikber ħalli nkun nista’ nilgħab jien ukoll. F’għajnejja Stephen il-ġar kien l-aħjar player u billi hu jien iżomm mal-Juventus bdejt inżomm magħhom ukoll. Iktar ma bdejt nikber, iktar bdejt ninteressa ruħi, naqra l-gazzetti u nisma’ l-isport fuq ir-Rediffusion (Carmelo Costa, Louis Portelli)  - u nixrob kull kelma li nisma’ fuqhom.

Il-Ħamis l-1 ta’ Ġunju 1967: kelli ħdax-il sena u kont wasalt biex nispiċċa l-ewwel sena tal-Liċeo. Bħal dejjem, kull filgħaxija kont mistenni mmur nisma’ l-quddiesa, imma bħalma kien ili nagħmel xhur minn mindu tfarfart, kont nidħol il-Knisja ħalli nara min qaddes u x’kulur kien liebes – fil-każ li l-ġenituri jiddeċiedu li jagħmluli interrogazzjoni – u l-ħin ngħaddih nilgħab jew inpaċpaċ fuq iz-zuntier. Dakinhar moħħi ma tantx kien fil-logħob ma’ sħabi, imma fuq x’kien qed jiġri fil-grawnds tal-futbol tas-Serie A. L-aħħar ġurnata kienet qiegħda tintlagħab proprju waqt il-ħin tal-quddiesa. "Dawk'' kienu t-tim li ddomina l-futbol Taljan f’nofs is-snin sittin – u kellhom players mill-aqwa: Facchetti, Jair, Mazzola, Suarez. Il-Juventus kien ilhom ma jirbħu l-iscudetto sitt snin u t-tim kien meqjus bħala wieħed mhux ta’ klassi, partikolarment fuq quddiem.

Il-Juventus, punt wara l-Inter, kien imisshom home ma’ Lazio li kienu ‘l isfel ħafna fil-klassifika. Ir-rivali kellhom jilqgħu lil Mantova f’San Siro – logħba li kulħadd stenna li kienu se jiddominaw u jirbħu mingħajr diffikultà. Mela, ma nistax ngħid li kelli qalbi qawwija; anzi, tista’ tgħid kont kważi rassenjat li ‘’dawk’’ kienu se jirbħu r-raba’ scudetto fi żmien ħames snin waqt li l-Juventus, għas-sitt sena infila kienu se jibqgħu b’xiber imnieħer. Imma, sakemm nisma’ r-riżultat, xrara ta’ tama x’imkien fl-irkejjen ta’ moħħi kien hemm.

Ħin minnhom jitfaċċa fuq iz-zuntier Ġanni s-Sagristan u qal lill-grupp ta’ tfal u ħabbrilna "l-Inter 1-0 minn taħt u l-Juventus qed jirbħu 1-0’’. Għal sekonda jew tnejn qalbi waqfet. Ħarist lejn l-oħrajn, imma ħadd ma kien interessat wisq. M’għidt xejn imma irreaġixxejt istintivament. Ġrejt ġol-knisja, u dħalt f’nofs il-quddiesa, noffri li baqa’ minnha għall-bżonnijiet tal-Bianconeri...

Kif spiċċat lebbitt b’kemm Alla tani saħħa lejn id-dar. Wara ftit, fuq it-televixin Schaub-Lorenz abjad u iswed – missieri kien għamel ix-xhur jagħmel is-sahra biex stajna nixtruh – tħabbar ir-riżultat: il-Juventus rebħu 2-1 u l-Inter tilfu 1-0. Għall-Juventus kienu żewġ daqqiet ta’ ras (Bercellino, Zigoni) li tawhom iż-żewġ punti.

L-Inter għamlu partita jattakkaw, imma ma skurjawx. Il-Mantova rari qabżu nofs il-grawnd, imma fil-bidu tat-tieni taqsima Di Giacomo (ex-Inter!) ikkrossja minn fuq ix-xellug. Il-goalkeeper tal-Inter Sarti deher se jinterċetta mingħajr diffikultà, imma b’għaġeb ta’ kulħadd, il-ballun spiċċa fix-xibka. Il-filmat tal-logħba li rajna fuq it-TV diversi drabi fix-xhur ta’ wara illum ħadd ma jaf x’sar minnu sewwa. Aktarx li nqered fi ħruq fil-bini tar-Rai, flimkien ma diversi filmati prezzjużi oħra (fosthom tal-festival ta’ San Remo tal-1967).

Kien it-tlettax-il scudetto għal Juve, l-uniku wieħed li rbaħna taħt Heriberto Herrera, il-kowċ Paragwajan, meqjus bħala ''sergente di ferro’’, li mexxa lit-tim bejn l-1964 u l-1969. Hawn min iqisu bħala wieħed mill-prekursuri tal-logħba moderna: il-kelma li kontinwament kien jindirizza lejn il-players wat it-taħriġ u waqt il-logħob kienet “movimiento’’. Kellu jkun hemm perjodu xott ta’ 5 snin qabel ir-rebħ ta’ trofew ieħor.

Sarti – le, ma kienx jiġi n-nannu ta’ Radu – li kellu rekord impekkabbli, aqta’ dak l-iżball madornali li rregalalna l-Iscudetto, wara sena mar ma’ Juve bħala r-riżerva ta’ Anzolin. Ħalla din id-dinja xi ħames snin ilu.

Għall-Inter kien staġun diżastruż. Ġimgħa qabel it-telf tal-iscudetto kważi mirbuħ kienu tilfu l-final taċ-Champions’ Cup kontra Celtic. Ftit ġranet wara nqalgħu wkoll mill-Coppa Italia. Kien staġun ta’ ‘’zeru tituli’’, imma, agħar minn hekk, kien jidher ċar li kien wasal tmiem l-epoka tad-deheb tagħhom li fiha kienu qalgħu t-timbru ta’ ‘’grande Inter’’.

U dak it-tifel ta’ ħdax-il sena li fl-ewwel ta’ Ġunju offra nofs quddiesa għall-bżonnijiet tat-tim favorit - li, imbagħad, rebaħ il-league - għadu supporter tal-Juventus sal-lum. Minn dakinhar, it-tim rebaħ ruxxmata trofej, imma niddubita jekk qattx ħassejtni daqshekk eċċitat u kburi daqs dakinhar meta ħadna dak l-iscudetto minn ħalq ir-rivali storiċi.

Cheques and Imbalances

The Partit Laburista’s 39,000 margin of victory in the last elections represented a truly extraordinary result and will have implications – both positive and negative. Robert Abela is now able to declare that the umbilical cord with Joseph Muscat has been well and truly severed. He now can present himself as a PM willing to start afresh, free of the awkward baggage, stained with red, which saddled the government he led since 2020. Practically a clean slate. Quasi tabula rasa. Unless that infamous Paragraph 506 really does mean that fresh bloodstains will taint this administration too.

However, this is about the Partit Nazzjonalista, still rolling in the dust following the third consecutive electoral thrashing the biggest one yet in numerical terms – and possibly the most humiliating. It follows a heinous murder the state was partly responsible for, quite credible allegations of massive corruption, a pandemic, grey-listing, trade difficulties in the wake of the situation in Ukraine, a breakdown in relations between the Abela and his highly-popular predecessor and other serious problems the PN should have capitalised on – but managed not to. A considerable feat.

Voters delivered a terrible blow to the PN. What were the reasons? Their name is probably legion. Let’s list and discuss some of the more outstanding.

The in-fighting within the PN, once a model of unity when Fenech Adami ruled the roost, must be a factor in the defeat. Remember the time when Lino Spiteri (the best Prime Minister Malta never had, in my humble opinion) used to, apparently contemptuously - but probably in envy - refer to relations within the PN as ‘’harmonious as the choir in Nabucco’’, while his own party was patently riven with internal feuds? How times change.

Prior to this election, any aria about unity sung by the PN candidates prior would have been ear-achingly discordant, despite the best efforts of the choirmaster. On the level of internal unison, the party certainly did not hit the right notes with the electorate.

It’s not within the scope of this article to delve into the PN’s labyrinthine internal dynamics. They are complicated to understand, and it’s difficult to explain them to others but, behind the peaceful façade Grech sought to project lurks a great deal of animosity between individuals. Take Jason Azzopardi and Adrian Delia, for example. Bernard Grech did his level best to hammer out a truce between them, and there have been no more public rifts for many months, but nobody believes that relations between them have improved. The snide remarks against Delia in the blogs associated with the Civil Society juxtaposed with their uncritical lionising of Azzopardi, are a significant marker of the acrimonious state of affairs between the two. Even if that were a mistaken belief and the two have become like Damon and Pythias, the general perception is that the two are the best of enemies. Voters tend to shy away from a house seen to be divided unto itself.

Secondly, the promises. In all fairness, the PN made some excellent proposals. The ten "new" sectors are exciting and appear to be potentially fruitful on many levels. There was much to commend even about the controversial trackless tram pledge - as a concept. The apparent difficulties tied to its implementation do not seem to be utterly insoluble. But the constant editing of the manifesto, the apparent disagreement between PN stalwarts about their most eye-catching proposal, and the very late publication of the costings, detracted from the attractiveness of the programme. The party came across as vacillating and incompetent precisely in association with that aspect of the campaign – the electoral programme- which should have garnered them most votes.

Thirdly, while the PN may do its best to choose the most gaudy and attractive wrapping paper in which to package itself, it cannot escape the reality that the gift inside would not excite in many people a frenzied desire to possess it. Besides the internal wrangling, the perceived uncertainties and incompetence, there is the question of how the voters appraise the ability of the party to perform in a crucial area: the economy and finances. It’s all very well to cost projects with an impressive array of figures, but the bottom line for many voters is that the PN itself is practically indigent, owes millions to the state and, were it a business, it would have long folded up. Despite any number of degrees and diplomas and the glossy literature, would you employ a stockbroker who is personally bankrupt to invest your savings?

Fourthly, there is question of pitching your criticism of adversaries believably. At times the PN seems as if it truly believes the opprobrium it heaps upon the PL and I’m not referring to what is objectively wrong with the PL, like its tolerance and facilitation of corruption and the criminal destruction of the environment. The PL has manifestly performed admirably well in certain areas. Scorning and distorting what is clearly positive is off-putting to the more discerning, non-partisan citizens whose votes the PN needs like oxygen. Portraying the PL as neglectful of the poorer sections of society, for example, is a gross twisting of the reality many have experienced over the past 10 years. Telling that to pensioners whose income has improved markedly – or to their relatives – and to those, previously barely subsisting on social benefits amounting to €500 monthly, who are now employed and getting by, will not have gone down well. Objective observers know it’s not true for a considerable number of people who were on the poverty line prior to 2013.

Moreover, by rubbishing the increases and minimising the effects of better benefits and improved work opportunities will have strengthened the belief that the PN is cut off from social realities. Therefore, the breast-beating and the promises to improve matters on that score will have sounded hollow over the past weeks.

So, what can the PN do if it is to repurpose itself as a credible alternative government? Let’s consider the fourth factor mentioned above: perhaps consider acknowledging openly that the government has performed very ably in some sectors. Why not publicly recognise that the quality of life for many people in the lower financial strata has improved - and promise to do even better and work on those areas where there is still a degree of suffering, rather than attempt to stamp a false reality on the voters’ consciousness? A radical notion: if one were to employ honesty, rather than the usual politicking through the rubbishing of adversaries, it might shock voters so much they might actually vote for one.

This honesty in politics business is very much tied to political maturity, which among other things would entail taking public responsibility for one’s failures. Blaming the debacle on the payment of cheques a few days before voting-day and other abuses of the power of incumbency (undoubtedly ploys which, at the very least, raise questions) for the increase in the size of the defeat may help somewhat salve the pain of the bewildered PN core voters, but it does nothing to attract the thinking floating-voters – the only ones who can help the PN to a better result next time round. Any person of normal intelligence will realise that the more credible polls were predicting a colossal PL victory months before the first cheque thumped the first letter-box.

The PN has to sort itself out before even starting to fantasise about regaining power in 2027. There are the party finances to put in order. PN has been pretty secretive about the situation, giving the PL social media supporters an excellent opportunity to bandy about all sorts of figures (actually no, not all sorts; just some pretty astronomical ones) about the numbers in bold red at the bottom of its accounts. Even if the situation is dire as some think it is, it would be better to come clean with the electorate it is trying to convince and present a credible plan for getting out of the mess. That would probably set the voters’ minds at rest that the PN is not entirely bereft of the financial brains required to run the party’s finances – and the country’s.

Then there is the probably even thornier issue of internal divisions. No party can ever be free of a degree of ideological or personal conflict within its ranks, but the disagreement bedevelling the PN at present is beyond the pale. Voters cannot forget that a faction within the PN – whether justifiably or not is not the issue – forced the leader out despite his popularity among the grass-roots. That very same former leader was often on the same podium and the same TV screens with the ones who brought about his downfall - a constant reminder of the simmering dispute. He, or the ring-leaders of the coup which ousted him, may have to go. While the party grandees wishing to avoid bloodshed could hope that in five years’ time all will be forgotten, Delia’s many supporters are now baying for his enemies’ blood with the pain of the defeat adding decibels to the volume of their howls. As far as this complete outsider to things Nationalist can see they do not appear to be willing to settle for anything less than a purge.

Bernard Grech cannily realised long ago that, with Metsola safely ensconced in Brussels, there is no credible alternative to his leadersip. His will have his work cut out but he must start with the idea that the imbalance will not be removed by blaming cheques, but by treating the electorate as intelligent individuals rather than a bunch of avaricious ġaħans as his more embittered supporters tend to maintain.

He has five years in which to try and transform this apparently washed-up, has-been pugilist of a party with a glorious past but little else into a fighting force ready to step into the ring and confront the apparently invincible champion. At stake there is the glittering belt of power, but more than that there is the absolute necessity to fight the good fight in the name of democracy.

The dangers of a situation where elections are almost a formality hardly bear writing about. You don’t have to be a die-hard Nationalist to wish Grech and the PN well. 

Cannabis – A Gateway to Hell?

A few days ago Parliament approved legislation regulating the legalisation of cannabis. The protestations of rehabilitation experts, professionals and other concerned bodies – and later their suggestions to mitigate the effects of the proposed measures - were totally ignored. The government which in 2012 had solemnly promised to listen has, nine years later, contracted some severe sort of age-related hearing loss and become stone-deaf. 

Many are asking what will happen now. None of us is endowed with precognitive powers, so what the future really holds is a mystery. However, the highly-educated guess of most of my colleagues, who are more knowledgeable about drug-related matters than I am, is that the doomsday scenarios envisaged by some, featuring thousands of our fellow-countrymen becoming enslaved to the devil weed and streets replete with mindless zombies staggering about (I exaggerate, but you get my drift), are the stuff of comic-books, and not tomorrow’s reality.

So, no end-times panoramas but plenty of negative outcomes not to look forward to: an increase in use, a smallish rise in the number of cannabis dependent-individuals, some further cases of cannabis-related psychosis and quite possibly higher numbers of drug-induced accidents (some of which will result in death) both at the work-place and on the roads. There will be the inevitable irresponsible idiots who will grow/smoke the stuff at home and not exercise due control over their children. Possibly the most underrated effect of all is that recovering addicts will find it harder to resist the lure of relapse with cannabis becoming more easily and widely available. All avoidable problems and heartaches.

There of course will be inevitable positive effects as a result of the new the legislative regime: trafficking will be quite substantially reduced (though it will never die out, in much the same way as the contraband of cigarettes and alcohol persists), a small proportion of police resources can be diverted elsewhere, and the quality of the cannabis sold will improve.

All in all, we would have been considerably better off with a tweaking of the legislative framework to ensure more comprehensive decriminalisation rather than the virtual legalisation and normalisation of cannabis use. Experts have tried to warn the government, but Robert Abela’s outfit apparently does not suffer wise men – or women - gladly.

Doubtlessly within a few months, the hullabaloo surrounding this bill will die down and the process of mainstreaming of the substance will be smoothly completed with the (few) casualties quietly buried and hospitalised with the other victims of life. 

However, on another level after Tuesday’s vote, life may never be the same again. The enactment of this legislation has signalled another psychological milestone - a crossing of a mental Rubicon, as it were. In much the same way as divorce paved the way for the legal sanctioning of behaviour and attitudes deemed to fall within the realm of civil rights, and many people - previously opposed to civil unions, adoption by same-sex couples and same-sex marriages - just accepted their enactment without a murmur, so the legalisation of cannabis may unleash a spate of “reforms’’ previously undreamt of among us, which will also receive Parliamentary approval.

How long will it take for the argument to be brought up that, now that  cannabis is legal, it is discriminatory for users of heroin and cocaine to be prosecuted for carrying small(ish) amounts of their drug of choice and that society would be better off with these substances being brought into the mainstream and regulated, just like dope? If objections to the fact that legalisation will quite likely result in increased use of cannabis had no effect on the executive and our legislators, why should the esteemed ladies and gentlemen (go away, Commissioner Dalli) be swayed by the same argument in relation to coke and smack? Does anyone honestly think that cocaine and heroin will be not liberalised, in more or less the same way cannabis has been, fairly soon?

The government (or at least those elements within it evidently bent on transforming our country into a liberal ‘paradise’ where most things, include some hitherto considered immoral, go) has already chosen to tread the path conveniently paved by the divorce referendum. The gate to this paradise has been pushed open even further by yet another triumph of the liberal lobby – and the dismantling of another set of psychological barriers to changes so far deemed shocking by most of us.

Many are afraid that one of  items on the 'liberal' agenda is something even more sinister than the legalisation of coke and heroin with all their lethal consequences. What was inconceivable even a decade ago is now, if not quite at the door, certainly this side of the horizon. The great fear for those of us who consider human life to be the primary value is that some time with the next few years abortion will, in some shape or form, be introduced.

Of course, just like cannabis, and other ‘reforms’ the killing of human life in the womb will not appear in any electoral manifesto as a clear and solemn promise. Rather, an ambiguous reference to a “discussion’’ will quite likely be made as per the tried and tested blueprint. Proposal 16 of Section 16 of the PL’s 2017 Manifesto stated that “the next step is to start a discussion […] about the use of cannabis for recreational purposes.’’

Any reasonable individual would have interpreted that phrase as meaning that there would be a discussion about WHETHER to introduce legislation legalising pot. Instead, right from the off, we were presented with the intention to introduce the legislation and were most generously offered the possibility to discuss HOW to introduce it. Commissioner Dalli can now smugly enjoy another gloat at our expense.

Robert Abela who had stated he would oppose anybody who sought to introduce abortion, recently made very clear noises about a “discussion’’ about abortion although, in fairness, he also mentioned the need to uphold the rights of unborn human life.

The nightmare scenario: this “discussion’’ will be mentioned in the 2022 Electoral Manifesto in roughly the same terms as the proposal to hold a discussion on cannabis. And do you know what? Voters will not give a blind bit of notice to the implications of that promise. What with the economy still apparently doing well and the Partit Nazzjonalista looking like a badly-rehearsed vaudeville act, the PL will be resoundingly returned. And then the ‘discussion’ will start...

The notion that cannabis is a gateway drug may have been practically debunked in so far as the conceptualisation of the addiction itinerary is concerned, but in the Maltese context the legalisation of the drug may yet prove to be the gateway to a horrendously and hellishly bloody future.

I hope to God I’m wrong.

Sue Arnold's Change of Heart

Sue Arnold is a highly-respected British journalist with liberal views. When I lived in the UK during the early '80s I, along with tens of thousands of others, was a devotee of her weekly column in The Observer. Although almost four decades have gone by, I still remember vividly the Sunday she sprang the news on an unsuspecting readership that she was virtually blind due to a genetic eye condition called Retinitis Pigmentosa.

Occasionally she smoked cannabis. In 1997, she published an article  in the Observer revealing that she had smoked ‘skunk’ at a dinner party. Skunk is the most potent form of cannabis available, and Sue's eyesight had improved dramatically for the short period she was under its influence. Unfortunately for her, the joint also had an inebriating effect, rendering her ‘legless’ and almost unable to speak.          http://cdnedge.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/212301.stm

Not surprisingly, Arnold became a vociferous champion for the use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, initially campaigning for research to be done to isolate the cannabinoid which gave her back her eyesight for those few precious minutes, from the rest of  tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which produces the stoning effect. Eventually, she broadened the scope of her articulate support for a change in attitudes to the legalisation of cannabis for both therapeutic and recreational purposes.

As is well known, the British Government was, at the time, planning to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug (on the same level as steroids and sedatives). Initially this would have meant that personal use would no longer make one liable to prosecution. But the medical establishment and drug workers warned that the effect of this move would be an increase in drug use, with all the consequences this would entail. Stung by the strength of the reaction, the British Government had decided to go ahead with the downgrading, but continued to consider possession of cannabis illegal.

All those who had been following the debate about the decriminalisation of cannabis expected Sue Arnold to come out with a partial endorsement of the proposals to liberalise the law. But, on the 18th January 2004, Arnold wrote an article in the Observer announcing that she was no longer in favour of the use of cannabis. What had brought about the astounding change of heart was the damage cannabis had wreaked on something more precious to her than her own eyesight: the well-being of one of her sons.

Some years before, this young man had suffered a psychotic episode precipitated by the use of cannabis. He had spent six months in a psychiatric facility in England, and had been discharged on medication which, the family was told,  he would probably have to remain on for the rest of his life. Sue Arnold had seen for herself that those who warned about the serious ill-effects of cannabis were not simply reactionary killjoys bent on maintaining a repressive legal regime unnecessarily, but had very solid arguments to back up their stance http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jan/18/drugsandalcohol.society

The belief that besides increasing the chances of contracting lung cancer and emphysema, cannabis use can be responsible for triggering psychosis in susceptible individuals has gained momentum. Researchers at Yale University have concluded that THC can produce a psychotic reaction. years ago, Dr. Robin Murray, a senior psychiatrist at Maudsley Hospital warned that smoking dope can greatly increase one’s chances of becoming mentally ill - and can also aggravate existing psychotic symptoms. The Psychiatric Times has reviewed the evidence and concluded that in regions cannabis becomes more accessible, cases of cannabis-induced psychosis are expected to increase: Cannabis-Induced Psychosis: A Review (psychiatrictimes.com).

How can we ever express our gratitude, Robert Abela? Owen Bonnici deserves a monument. Come next Republic Day, the cannabis lobby should be collectively decorated.

In Malta, the lobby for the relaxation of the laws regulating cannabis possession and use has won the day. Dope’s apparent and relative harmlessness, the difficulty to enforce the law (as evidenced by the widespread use of the drug among the young and not so young), and personal freedom are presented as arguments for its legalisation. But the inevitable rise in consumption of cannabis - when it becomes legal - and the dangers it poses to mental health, for at least a proportion of users, should have made us think twice before we let ourselves be convinced by the glib arguments of the ‘liberal’ lobby and the government's thirst for revenue - and votes.

At the very least, the government should take on the board the 53 NGOs' recommendations.

We do not have to go through Sue Arnold’s heartbreaking experience in order to realise what good sense dictates. Even at one second to midnight.

The British government has since reclassified cannabis as a class B drug.

Bernard u Emma u L-Abort. Imma anke Robert...

Jien membru ta l-grupp Abortion in Malta? Not in my Name!  M’iniex parti tal-amministrazzjoni, imma ili fih sa mill-bidu li twaqqaf. Nipprova nkun attiv kemm nista’. Dan li nqala’ dan l-aħħar ġegħelni nirrifletti. It-tħarbix jgħinni naħseb.

1. Meta sseħibt fih qatt u qatt ma immaġinajt li se jkun hemm fostna min se jsejħulu biex imur id-depot tal-Pulizija biex jagħti stqarrija fuq dak li kiteb fil-grupp. Imma ġraw ħafna affarijiet dan l-aħħar li qatt ma immaġinajna: żewġ anti-abortisti prominenti  qasmu x-xmara u kkampjaw ix-xatt l-ieħor, l-ex-PM li qabel l-2013 kien qalilna li hu kontra l-abort ftit xhur ilu qalilna li kkonverta u se jimpenja ruħu biex jiddaħħal f’Malta, il-PM li kien qalilna li jekk xi ħadd jipprova jdaħħal l-abort “isib lili kontrih’’ issa qed jgħid li hu favur diskussjoni u l-Kap il-ġdid tal-PN kważi malli tela’ qal li hu favur dibattitu (imbagħad benġilha li hu favur diskussjoni dwar kif ngħinu li-nisa tqal li għandhom id-diffikultà) approva l-kandidatura mal-partit ta’ persuna li hija apertament favur l-abort.

2. Fil-grupp kien hawn reazzjoni għal dawn l-avvenimenti kollha. L-aktar waħda qalila kienet għall-approvazzjoni ta’ Emma Portelli Bonnici mal-PN. Naħseb li kienet tnin ftit ftit bħal ma jiġri dejjem, li kieku Dr. Portelli Bonnici ma reġgħetx nefħet fuq il-ġamar billi marret u għamlet rapport lill-pulizija fuq qassis li, skont hi, kien uża kliem ta’ mibegħda fil-konfronti tagħħa fuq il-paġna tagħna. Ħafna ħaduha bi kbira (u mhux qed ngħid li għandhom raġun) li kandidata Nazzjonalista marret tirraporta qassis u l-biċċa l-kbira deher li kienu Nazzjonalisti pjuttost akkaniti, għalkemm mhux veru li kienu Nazzjonalisti biss.

3. Kien hemm din ir-reazzjoni qawwija għaliex – biex ma noqogħdux induru mal-lewża – ħafna minn dawk favur il-ħajja huma wkoll Nazzjonalisti. Hemm eluf ta’ Laburisti wkoll fost il-membri tal-grupp – u nies li daqqa jivvutaw naħa u daqqa oħra – imma l-biċċa l-kbira normalment jivvutaw lill-PN. Dawn assolutament ma ridux inniżżluha jirrappreżenta lill-Partit li huma jafuh li jitnebbaħ mill-valuri Nsara se jkun hemm min irid li l-liġi Maltija tippermetti l-qtil tal-ħajja umana fil-ġuf. Barra minn hekk, anke dawk li mhumiex marbuta mal-PN qed jirrealizzaw kemm huwa perikoluż li jkollok MP li, anke jekk il-partit ma jaqbilx, għandu s-setgħa li jintroduċi Private Members’ Bill u jekk isib appoġġ biżżejjed fil-kamra, f’temp ta’ ftit xhur insibu li l-qirda tal-ħajja fil-ġuf saret legali f’pajjiżna.

4. Ksaħna meta bdejna nisimgħu li xi nies mill-grupp (li jgħodd l-eluf kbar) kienu ssejħu d-depot. Waħħalna fir-rapport li Emma Portelli Bonnici kienet għamlet, imma wara ftit sirna nafu li hi kienet irrapurtat biss lil Fr. Andrew Borg. Il-pulizija, milli jidher, aġixxew ex-ufficio (jiġifieri minn jeddhom, mingħajr il-ħtieġa li jsir rapport) u, wara li qraw il-messaġġi f’ Abortion in Malta? Not in my name! sejħu madwar 40 (erbgħin!) ruħ. Uħud minn dawn  lanqas fejn sewwasew jiġi d-depot ma kienu jafu u għalkemm il-pulizija ttrattawhom tajjeb, l-esperjenza għal xi ftit kienet, tista’ tgħid, trawmatika.

5. Dan kollu – biex ngħidu kollox anke qabel ma l-membri tagħna ssejħu d-depot – naħsbu li daħħal lill-PN f’qoxortu. Bejn irrealizza li l-kandidatura ta’ persuna favur l-abort kienet se ttellef il-voti minflok, kif kien ħaseb Grech (forsi fuq parir tal-konsulenti) li se juri li l-partit huwa miftuħ anke għal ideat li sa ftit ilu kienu taboo assolut. L-interpretazzjoni ċinika hija li li għamlu kalkolu ta’ malajr u qiesu li se jitilfu aktar milli se jirbħu – u wara ftit Bernard Grech ħareġ jgħid li mhux sa jippermetti “li xi ħadd fil-Partit se ikun favur l-abort u jibqa’ fil- Partit, jew jibqa’ b’xi mod jirrapreżenta lill-Partit. M’hemmx post għal min mhux favur il-ħajja.’’ Daqqet ħelu f’widnejna. Mhux li smajnieha qabel, għidna – u fraħna. U minn fostna ħafna bdew jgħidu: Bernard Grech wera li hu ta’ prinċipju u ta’ stoffa, gwerrier li ma jibżax jieħu deċiżjonijiet ibsin imdawla mit-twemmin tal-partit li jmexxi.

6. Kienet ferħa bla temma. Instemgħet għajta ta’ ljun qalbieni li dwiet għal waqt wieħed kemm qajmet ġisem min semagħha xewk xewk, biex f’ħakka t’għajn l-iljun deher jirtira b’denbu bejn saqajh. Għandi viżjoni quddiem għajnejja (forsi żbaljata għal kollox) li l-consigliere kważi ġdid fjamant mar jiġri għandu il-Kap bir-reazzjoni tal-lobby tal-abortisti f’id waħda u l-calculator fl-oħra u wrieh li meta tqis kollox, aktarx ma jaqbilx li l-PN jżomm mal-prinċipju storiku u aħjar jekk jipproġetta x-xbiha tal-partit modern, cool u miftuħ għal kull żiffa, riħ jew riefnu jonfoħ min-naħa tas-suċċess elettorali – u kull ma jġibu magħhom. U mhux ħaġa kbira (jekk tassew ġara dak li stħajjilt) biex il-consigliere kważi ġdid fjamant , mogħmi bid-dawl jgħammex tal-ideat liberalissimi li jħaddan, għafas xi numru fil-calculator, jekk mhux tnejn, żbaljat. Għax hemm għadd ġmielu ta’ Nazzjonalisti, u oħrajn li kienu kważi ċerti li se jivvutaw lil Bernard & Co. li issa qegħdin jgħidu “Inżabbab mhux nivvota’’. U l-partiti l-ġodda li ma jistħux ixejru l-banner tal-ħajja jogħrku jdejhom.

7. L-amministraturi tal-grupp Abortion in Malta? Not in my name mill-ewwel daru ma’ dawk l-erbgħin ruħ li sfaw arrestati u lesti jipprovdulhom għajnuna legali –biċċa minnha ffinanzjata mill-membri tal-grupp – jekk il-pulizija jiddeċiedu li jipproċedu kontrihom. Esperjenza kerha, imma probabbli hija sinjal ta’ dak li hemm jisteniena fix-xhur u s-snin li ġejjin. Il-ġlieda se tiħrax hekk kif aktar nies qegħdin jinħakmu mill-kurrenti hekk-imsejħa liberali u jħaddnu t-twemmin suppost progressiv tal-jien-hu-alla-sidi. Qed ngħixu f’dinja fejn il-partit politiċi lesti jagħmlu l-kompromessi għall-voti – u fejn il-pressjoni minn barra minn Malta timbotta kontinwament għall-bidla fid-direzzjoni tas-sodifazzjon tal-istinti u għala bieb għajni mill-konsegwenzi.

8. Il-ħruxija tal-ġlieda m’għandha qatt taqtagħlna qalbna imma lanqas m’għandha twebbishielna tant li naraw lill-“avversarji’’ bħala xjaten. Hemm min qed jaqbeż il-linji u jwaddab l-insulti bl-addoċċ. Mhux dejjem qed issir id-differenza bejn l-argument favur l-abort (li hu mnellaħ mill-qalba u mnawwar mill-għeruq) u min jagħmel l-abort jew qed jiġġieled biex isir legali (li huma bnedmin bħalna, xbiha t’Alla għal min jemmen). Niġġieldu l-argument b’ħiltna kollha, imma lill-avversarji, bħala bnedmin, irridu nirrispettawhom.

Anke għal min jiġi jaqa’ u jqum mill-aspett “morali’, hemm liġi li tgħid li ċertu lingwaġġ ma jistax jintuża. Ma rridux ripetizzjoni talli ġara (anke jekk il-Pulizija esaġeraw bil-kbir meta sejħu d-Depot nies fuq kummenti tassew innoċenti). U jekk lanqas dan l-argument mhu konvinċenti biżżejjed, tajjeb niftakru li ma jaqbilx li lil dawk ta’ favur l-abort nagħtuhom iċ-ċans jilagħbuha tal-vittmi msawta bil-kitba ta’ “dawk ta’ favur il-ħajja’’. 

9. Aħna rridu nkunu moħħna hemm u ma ninsewx għal sekonda x’inhu l-aktar importanti. Bħalissa qed nisimgħu ħafna kliem sabiħ mill-membri tal-grupp favur il-prinċipji li nħaddnu, imma, kif toqrob l-elezzjoni, id-deni jibda jaħkem sew u, bl-iskuża li l-avversarji politiċi ma jixirqilhomx ikunu fil-Gvern, malajr ninsew li l-ħajja tiġi l-ewwel u qabel kollox u nċedu għat-tentazzjoni li nivvutaw skont il-passjoni politika u mhux skont il-prinċipji u l-valuri li nħaddnu u nippridkaw.

10. F’dawn l-aħħar jiem, bir-raġun kollu, il-ħarsa tagħna kienet fuq il-PN u Emma Portelli Bonnici. Fil-PN hemm nies prominenti oħra li huma wkoll favur l-abort (Martina Caruana, Jamie Vella). Ma jawgura tajjeb xejn għall-futur. Imma ma naħsbux li t-theddid għall-ħajja umana ġej minn hemm biss. Imċappas bl-aħmar ukoll; fil-PL hemm individwi mlaħħqa li huma favur l-abort: Cyrus Engerer u Alfred Sant, pereżemju. Imma hemm oħrajn li 99% huma wkoll tal-qatgħa ta’ Emma Portelli Bonnici, Jamie Vella, Martina Caruana eċċ. Pereżempju Rosianne Cutajar.  U l-enfasi fuq ''id-drittijiet riproduttivi'' (ħafna drabi ewfemiżmu għall-abort) jagħtuk x'tifhem li hemm oħrajn....

U l-iktar li għandhom ibeżżgħuna mhumiex dawk li (bejn wieħed u ieħor) jitkellmu fil-miftuħ, daqskemm dawk li ma jitkellmu qatt fuq l-abort imma jekk kellu jkun hemm vot fil-Parlament lesti mhumiex lesti jisfidaw il-whip, avolja din suppost hija kwistjoni fundamentali ta’ kuxjenza. Il-pożizzjoni tal-partit - kif rajna mill-kwistjonijiet fuq iż-żwieġ gay u l-addozzjonijiet minn koppji omosesswali - wara l-elezzjoni taf tinbidel inkiss inkiss u ħesrem.

Se jkollna għalxiex u ma' xiex nissieltu. Moħħna hemm.