Earlier
this week the Employment Commission held another sitting in the case
Norman Vella, a former TV presenter/producer and a current MEP hopeful,
instituted against the Prime Minister. Mr Vella is saying that his
removal from PBS and the popular programme he hosted, TVHemm, was an act
of political discrimination.
In
his defence Mr Vella claimed, among other things, that before the
election, Dr Muscat had told him and Peppi Azzopardi that he would pay
them back if they were unfair to the Labour Party.
The offending phrase was: “For every blow that we feel you are striking the Labour Party, I will strike you twice, with all my strength, under the belt.”
Mr Vella is claiming that now is pay-back time and that Prime Minister Muscat used his power to oust him out of PBS.
During
the last session of the Employment Commission both Mr Peppi Azzopardi,
producer of Xarabank, and Mr Kurt Farrugia, Head of Government
Communications testified that words to that effect were used by Dr
Muscat.
I
was surprised to read that Mr Farrugia tried to explain away those
words saying that this is a common way of speaking between politicians
and journalists. I strongly beg to differ.
I
have been active in journalism for more years than I care to remember. I
occupied top editorial posts with more than one medium and encountered
all the key politicians on the Island. I had on air and of air
disagreements with many. However no one ever used any similar threat in
my regard. I don’t believe that I am the exception.
During
the cross-examination, Mr Farrugia was asked whether the Labour Party
ever protested with the Broadcasting Authority regarding Mr Norman Vella
who was hosting TVHemm during a very politically sensitive period. Mr
Farrugia said that he deemed Mr Vella to be biased against the Labour
Party but he never protested with the Authority as he thinks that a
journalist has the right to ask whatever he/she wants to ask.
That was a very good answer indeed.
There
is, though, just one little snag. Mr Farrugia said that Dr Muscat used
the harsh words he used because he was angered (or some similar emotion)
that during a previous edition of Xarabank a question was thrown at him
with which he felt uncomfortable. He believed that the question posited
during Xarabank was made in collusion with the Nationalist Party.
The
offending question was about the property that previous Labour
governments had given to the Labour Party. I can understand that this
was a question that Dr Muscat would have preferred not to be asked, but a
fair question it was by any standard. Besides, if one thinks that a
journalist has the right to ask any question what was wrong with the
asking of this question? What was there in that question that merited a
blow down under? The mind boggles.
During
the same session of the Employment Commission it turned out that a
different reason had been given to Mr Azzopardi for Dr Muscat’s anger.
Mr Azzopardi testified that he had been told that Dr Muscat used the
words he used as he was angry for being treated unfairly (that what he
thinks, at least) during an edition of Bondi+ not because of something
that happened during Xarabank.
Which
is the true reason: what Mr Kurt Farrugia testified earlier this week;
what Mr Peppi Azzopardi was told back then or some other reason?
Meanwhile the case continues.
I think the best thing you should do dear FATHER Borg is to keep away of politics or at least get defrocked and and than enter politics on the side of the PN
ReplyDelete