Labour discovers manners

Robert Abela has discovered that personal attacks are unpleasant. Do sit down. The shock may be considerable.

“Personal attacks will absolutely never form part of the PL’s vocabulary,” he told MaltaToday, continuing that this sort of thing will be left to the PN, which has always used it.

One wonders which Labour Party he has been leading. There must be another one, somewhere, staffed by gentle souls who spend their evenings discussing policy and pressing flowers. The one the rest of us know has been rather less fastidious.

It was Neville Gafà’s treatment of Labour MEP Thomas Bajada and others in a row involving the Housing Authority that caused the dear old (M)LP to clutch its pearls.

Gafà has been warned that his continued use of Labour’s headquarters may be brought to an end if he persists. Abela supports the warning, although the prospect apparently pains him: exclusion would be “against our wishes”.

How touching. Even someone like Gafa’ deserves a little cuddle.

I have no difficulty with Bajada being defended against personal abuse. He is entitled to that protection. So is the Housing Authority employee whose supposed political sympathies have become a matter for Gafà’s attention. What interests me is the discovery of basic decency just when it becomes useful inside the Labour family.

Those of us languishing outside the family might reasonably ask when our membership of the human race will be recognised. Daphne Caruana Galizia, for instance, could have done with some of this exquisite sensitivity.

There is a document Abela might consult before treating us to another lecture about Labour’s saintly vocabulary. It is the report of the public inquiry into her assassination, published in July 2021. Five years should have afforded him time to get beyond the cover.

The board identified an organised, sustained campaign involving elements within the state, particularly the Office of the Prime Minister, which obstructed Daphne’s work and contributed to her dehumanisation. It called Home Affairs Minister Glenn Bedingfield’s blog at the time its “worst expression”.

The inquiry rejected the comforting excuse that Bedingfield was merely answering her in kind. A journalist faced the resources of a party, a media organisation and government. The imbalance mattered.

That is the record against which Abela’s pious declaration must be judged.

The board went further: it found that the state bore responsibility for the assassination through the atmosphere of impunity generated at the heart of government and its failure to recognise and address the danger to Daphne’s life.  A Labour prime minister confronted with that finding ought to spend rather less time congratulating his party on its manners.

Abela also saw fit to seat Bedingfield in his Cabinet as Home Affairs Minister. Apparently the inquiry’s assessment of his contribution to the campaign against Daphne presents no insuperable obstacle to holding political responsibility for the police.

Consider this small souvenir of this gentleman’s oeuvre, in which I used to star, car number and all. No compunctions about personal attacks or telling people where I spend my time.

The hypocrisy is awesome to behold.

Journalists, campaigners and citizens who challenge power are entitled to hear a prime minister answer what they say. They should not have to accept being presented as malicious enemies whose motives dispose of their arguments.

If Abela means what he says, that the Labour Party, despite the evidence, does not go in for ad hominem attacks, he should apply the same concern when the person under attack has never voted Labour and never will.

Until then, forgive me if I decline to applaud a warning about access to a party building as a great moral awakening. Gafà has discovered that there may be limits when his targets include people Labour wishes to protect.

Daphne discovered how few limits there were when she was the target.

Abela can spare us the sermon. We have read the report.