Europe has gone through countless wars, strife, mediation and debate to come out with the best possible systems of law and order. Our democratic precepts and way of life are the result of a historical development that today continues forward by our interactions and thoughts. We have a justice system that is the result of years of democratic politics and mediation between leigslators. In December 2019, two men decided to tear down all of this for their own stupid and criminal game.
Robert Abela and Joseph Muscat decided to pin down our system of rule of law, politics, the state and the Labour Party itself on giving impunity to Joseph Muscat and his associates for abetting and covering up a murder of a journalist, and committing a long string of massive corrupt schemes while in government. Basically, we had to give up rule of law, and a mediative political democratic set up for might is right. By voting for Robert Abela as leader, the Labour Party decided that since it is in government, it should take over the state instead of mediating its executive power through it, constitutionally and by the law. This has led to an erosion of our democracy, the collapse of rule of law, the disarmament of the state, and a local economy in a rent-seeking regime.
The choice between Robert Abela and Chris Fearne back then was the equivalent of an O Level question. It was between a normal functioning state and democracy and a criminal organisation that was usurping democracy. Every time this question comes back, the logical conclusion is the same. In a choice between Joseph Muscat and the state, we choose the state and anyone who is in the way of this logical outcome should face the full consequences of the law.
Joseph Muscat wants to delude people that he is being persecuted and the Nationalists can’t forgive him for sending them back to the Opposition benches. We couldn’t care less if Joseph Muscat had Saddam Hussein election outcomes of 99%. Joseph Muscat is forcing the Maltese to make a choice between his freedom and impunity and the state. He’s delusional, pathological and narcissistic to think we are ever going to accept this proposal. This goes for all his friends and accomplices. As a politician or state functionary, betraying the state and the people is not an excusable offence, and when the betrayal is existential to democracy and rule of law itself, it’s an unforgivable crime of a very serious order.
So, this is not a personal matter, and not even a matter of being excessively scrupulous, either. The consequences of impunity have wrought havoc to our democracy, state and fabric of the nation, and even brought the murder of a journalist. Dissolving the real Devil’s Pact would unpin the shackles of rule of law from Joseph Muscat, and the state could move forward. On the other hand, Rosianne Cutajar can’t redeem herself just by apologising. It doesn’t work that way and Robert Abela doesn’t have the authority to mediate the law single-handedly by holding a gun at us: the only one holding a gun between us all should be the state with all its branches working constitutionally and in the spirit of the law.
The only way Rosianne Cutajar can redeem herself is by turning state witness – this is not just my personal opinion, but that’s how the law intrinsically works. Redemption goes through the law and not through political power. If the Labour Party wants to save itself by choosing redemption, I wouldn’t oppose its decision on principle, because I too was a Labour Party member in another life, but this redemption has to be matched by a practical restoration of rule of law that starts within the Party itself hence, why Rosianne Cutajar can only redeem herself by taking the witness stand against Joseph Muscat.
I can even offer to write the statement for the Labour Party, free of charge if they like. It would have to start by saying that for many years, the Labour Party was wrong, followed by an explicit condemnation of Joseph Muscat and the removal of his membership. Alternatively, they can choose to remain a Party of criminal clowns and face the full consequences of the law when eventually, things are resolved politically in another way. Eventually, they always do.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply