 |
| Inquisitor Toni Abela |
I have been shaking my head and giggling all the way from the law courts to my office in G'Mangia.
In a court case which has dragged on for six years, Toni Abela, the PL leader appearing as a lawyer for the other side, asked the magistrate to give a ruling on my public declaration of atheism. His point was that since I swore on the crucifux, all my testimony is now called into question.
An hour later Toni Abela went on Super One Radio and told his audience that my declaration about the non-existence of god made everyone "igib ghajnejh wara widnejh".
And finally he made a Savonarola call to arms. How can I be allowed to say that I am an atheist "u qisu ma gara xejn".
Is this what being progressive, moderate and liberal means to the PL today? Is Toni Abela going to be our new Inquisitor in court after the next election?
26 comments:
By the way, thanks for posting this, Lou. I shall print it and slap it on the face of every PL candidate that knocks on my door come election time.
Unless Toni Abela is seriously and publicly reprimanded by the party leader, they have made it clear that atheists are not welcome in the PL. After all, atheists "cannot be trusted".
Well, what do you expect from someone who dresses like that?
Hold on a minute. You're a declared atheist therefore your sworn testimony - as opposed to your oath - is dubious. How does that follow?
Please do not say I should ask Toni Abela. He wouldn't know.
Take a look at this from Cyrus Engerer:
"The (divorce) issue revealed how those who have a more liberal view, rather than religious, were being sidelined. They wanted to use me as a poster boy to attract those who do not share the same principles of the GonziPN clan. This was what irritated me mostly".
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/2011/1012/watch-reporter-cyrus-engerer
Someone please tell Cyrus that it is actually the PL that is using him as a "poster boy". And while he/she's at it, someone please share with him the views of the PL's Deputy Leader on atheism. Or is it progressive and liberal to be pro-gay (even though Joseph Muscat is a homophobe), and concurrently progressive and liberal to be anti-religious freedom?
Don't these idiots realise that with all their bullshit talk, they are actually enraging the real progressives and liberals among us?
Oh my God!... oops... I guess I can't say that.
and this bunch of idiots want to be trusted to lead the country?
gimme GonziPN any day of the week, as with these "liberals", looks more like the Talibans.
... unflippingbelieavable!
I have just received a letter from PL candidate Etienne Grech. Among other things it includes the following sentence:
"Il-Partit Laburista huwa partit li jinkludi lil kullhadd u ma jeskludix nies minhabba idejat diversifikati tal-individwu".
Sure, tell that to your own deputy leader.
What a bunch of fucking liars.
What's happening to my P.N.?
First we welcomed the Puftas.
Then the lesbians,
now we are accepting the atheists,
soon we will be welcoming the Idiots. Please stop the bus,I want to go down.
Questioning the "swearing to say the truth "so help you God" whilst simultaneously declaring your atheism is legitimate. If Abela was making a fuss because the court still accepted your tesitmony, he is right too, but if he is making a fuss because of your self declared atheism he shouldn't but that is no less political opportunism then you have shown a million times before only if was directed against the PL whilst his is directed at the PN.
Thanks for sharing this Lou. We are so far from the ideals that Human Rights prescribe, i.e. Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion.
@ Anonymous:
The whole point of taking an oath (on the cross, bible or whatever) is utterly ridiculous.
Everyone is expected to tell the truth in court.
What would rather have - An atheist who takes an oath on the bible and proceeds to tell the truth, or a Christian who takes an oath on the bible and proceeds to lie in court?
And just a few minutes ago Cyrus Engerer on Smash was waxing lyrical the PL and Joey Muscat as an organisation that is open for one and all.
Well, I suppose they decided that being Liberal wasn't serving them anymore....so they've ditched it.
Atheists (and non-catholics I think) are allowed to affirm, simply by stating 'nafferma' and that is as binding as any oath, with the same penalties for perjury. Of course we tell the truth because we think its the thing to do, not because we believe we'll burn in hell for ever if we don't.
Oh well, another reason not to vote for the PL. That, and the fact that there are no elections for running a pastizzerija coming up. (a SMALL pastizzerija)
The more the PL use the words NEW and Progressive, the more one can see their deceit.
Lou, filwaqt li jien m'inix avukat jew xi espert fil-liġi, mill-interpretazzjoni tiegħi, persuna li mhux Kattolika għandha DRITT li ma taħlifx fuq is-salib, imma mkien ma jissemma li dan huwa pprojbit.
Fil-liġi ta' Malta, f'kull sitwazzjoni fejn tissemma ħalfa ("oath"), l-individwu jista' minflok jagħmel "dikarazzjoni solenni" li hija identika ħlief li m'hemmx il-kliem "hekk jgħinni Alla". Imkien ma tissemma l-Bibbja, Kurċifiss jew simboli reliġjużi oħra, u mkien m'hemm imsemmi li bniedem mhux Kattoliku ma jistax juża dawn is-simboli.
Ironikament, huma l-Kattoliċi li teknikament m'għandhomx dritt jagħmlu dan, għax il-liġi tgħid li dawk li mhumiex Kattoliċi jistgħu jagħmlu dikjarazzjoni solenni...
@ Ramon Casha - the issue is not a legal one which in any case will be decided by the court. It is political. Since you are declared atheist, I am curious to know what you think about a deputy leader of a party which claims to be liberal, progressive and moderate who acts in this way.
@Lou: I don't vote for parties, I vote for candidates. The fact that each candidate is linked with a party is incidental. In every election so far I have voted for candidates from all three main parties and I expect to do the same in the next election. Obviously I try to select the most liberal, secular, progressive candidates from each party. Let's say that this latest podophagy does nothing to increase Dr. Abela's chances of getting my vote.
Isn't it obvious! You're only entitled to have an opinion if it's the same as their's (i.e. the PLs).
This reminds me to Muscat's reaction towards Adrian Vassallo's stance in the divorce referendum stating clearly that "he will face consequences for his actions".
So we've got the leader and his deputy not accepting other's opinions when they differ from them - can't say they're not consistent come on!
According to Catholic teaching, "The baptismal character is permanent because it is timeless; it is indelible because nothing, not even the loss of faith can remove it. Therefore a baptized person always remains a Christian".
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0285.html
Of course, the above only seems sane to the religiously indoctrinated. But seeing that Toni Abela is proudly Catholic, is it not incumbent on him to at least follow his own church's teachings on the matter?
If a baptised person will always remain a Christian (as per Catholic doctrine), why all this fuss about a "Christian" taking an oath on the crucifix?
Perhaps Magistrate Apap Bologna should be told about this as well. Perhaps - such be the absurdities of faith when intermixed with secular matters - a case could even be made that Lou Bondi (being baptised) was actually legally required to kiss the crucifix.
How about this, Grand Inquisitor Toni Abela?
A lot of ranting today on this blog. The issue can be a bit simplified in this way. If you took an oath on something that you did not believe in, so technically that as a lie; thus whether your testimony in that court was true or false.
My pants that all those who go to court tell the truth - under any kind of oath or solemn declaration.
@ Anonymous:
"The issue can be a bit simplified in this way. If you took an oath on something that you did not believe in, so technically that as a lie..."
So basically, what you are saying is that if I take an oath on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and declare that the earth revolves around the sun, I would be telling a lie. Such is the wisdom that comes forth when faith takes the place of reason.
"...thus whether your testimony in that court was true or false."
Would you be so kind as to conclude that sentence, please?
@ MaltaRants:
"This reminds me to Muscat's reaction towards Adrian Vassallo's stance in the divorce referendum stating clearly that "he will face consequences for his actions"".
Terrible example. For a party that claims to be "progressive" and "liberal", it is unacceptable to have candidates that are against freedom of/from religion or being against divorce legislation (a civil right). Any self-respecting leader of a progressive liberal party would expel Adrian Vassallo at the first chance.
The problem is not that the PL does not accept as candidates people of all political/religious persuasions (it shouldn't), but that it claims to be progressive and liberal when the overwhelming majority of its politicians are clearly the opposite of liberal and progressive.
And there was i, wondering what had become of my old "nemesis"; to be sure, am not at all interested in the subject/s and/or content/s of this blog and others. But it is interesting to note that a certain character is up to his "old games" in this and other "boiling pots". Feels more comfy (esp. in using certain lexical items) in these environs rather than those of "The Times".
Wow; you've made a lot of progress recently, Cassar Kenneth, particularly in terms of tolerance levels and in hurling sobriquets " a destra e a manca". Hilarious and whimsical as is your wont! Endlessly amusing. Keep spinning, weaving and twisting. It's your area of expertise.
@ Andy Farrugia:
Yes, I've made a lot of progress. Apparently you haven't. You're still a troll (look it up) and a fundamentalist religious idiot who visits forums and blogs, posts insults without tackling the arguments (actually idiotically saying that you're not even interested in the arguments), and then runs away.
Why don't you go back where you belong - where the comments and behaviour of trolls, fundamentalists, racists and other lowlife is not only tolerated but actually encouraged.
@ Andy Farrugia:
By the way, troll is not a "sobriquet" (when trying to impress, make sure you know the correct definition). Troll is your description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Post a Comment